Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Jabalpur bench, presided over by Justice Devnarayan Mishra, denied bail to Munim Singh Gond, a tribal man accused of leopard hunting. The petitioner was charged under various sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, including provisions prohibiting hunting and penalizing attempts and abetment of wildlife crimes. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had set up an electric trap that killed a leopard, a species protected under the First Schedule of the Act. The court, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged crime, rejected the bail plea.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by his counsel, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was submitted that his arrest was based on circumstantial evidence, including the reaction of a forest squad’s dog and the discovery of porcupine quills near his house. The petitioner contended that he belonged to the tribal community and lived in a forest area, asserting that he did not construct the trap that allegedly killed the leopard. The defence further claimed that other individuals might have been involved in the incident and sought leniency based on the petitioner’s socio-economic background.

On the other hand, the State’s counsel highlighted the findings from the investigation and the post-mortem report of the leopard. It was argued that the leopard died due to electrocution, as per the forensic findings, and that remains of porcupine quills were discovered at the petitioner’s residence. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had intentionally set up the electric trap by fixing small wooden posts, wrapping them with G.I. cable, and supplying electric current. The evidence also included a spot map that corroborated the prosecution’s version of events. The State argued that the petitioner had committed a grievous offence by killing a leopard, a species accorded the highest level of protection under the Wildlife Protection Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The court, after examining the arguments and evidence, dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Justice Devnarayan Mishra referred to the post-mortem report, which confirmed that the leopard had died from electrocution. The court also considered the prosecution’s evidence, including the remains of porcupine quills found at the scene, the spot map showing the presence of an electric line, and the allegation that the petitioner had set up the lethal trap.

The court emphasized the severity of the alleged offence, particularly given the leopard’s status as a protected species under the First Schedule of the Wildlife Protection Act. The judgment noted that the actions attributed to the petitioner if proven, constituted a serious breach of wildlife protection laws. Furthermore, the court underscored that the principles of conservation and legal deterrence demanded stringent action against such offences to protect endangered wildlife.

In light of these considerations, the court rejected the petitioner’s plea for bail, stating that the evidence against him warranted a thorough trial. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining the ecological balance and ensuring the effective enforcement of wildlife protection laws to safeguard India’s biodiversity.