Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010285322025 2025:GAU-AS:17614 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3029/2025 RAJIB CHOWDHURY S/O SHIBASHIS CHOWDHURY R/O 8 AJC BOSE ROAD, WARD NO. 10, NEW BARRACKPORE, NORTH 24 PARGANAS, KOLKATA-700131, WEST BENGAL. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SPECIAL PP, WILDLIFE, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR. U S BORA Advocate for the Respondent : SPL PP WILDLIFE FOREST ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 18.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wild Life Forest, Assam appearing for the respondent. Page No.# 2/7 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for pre-arrest bail to the accused/applicant, viz., Rajib Chowdhury in connection ONP Case No.07/2025 registered under Sections 2/9/35/49(B) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. The instant case i.e. ONP Case No.07/2025 has been registered primarily on the basis of the alleged interception of one Mofidul Islam on 25.11.2025 at Kharupetia Police Station dealing with 17 numbers of live Channa Barca allegedly brought from Orang National Park area. It has been alleged that since 2023 the accused persons had been supplying Channa Barca to the present accused/applicant. 4. It is the case of the accused/applicant that he was earlier implicated in ONP Case No.03/2025 under Sections 2/9/27/49B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on the allegation that one accused had shared the accused/applicant’s contact details and another accused had sent him a video of a fish claimed to be Channa Barca. Being aggrieved at that time, the accused/applicant approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Darrang and he was granted anticipatory bail by order dated 11.11.2025. 5. Being seriously aggrieved by the registration and continuation of ONP Case No.03/2025, the accused/applicant had approached this Court by filing a Criminal Petition being Criminal Petition No.1560/2025 on the grounds, amongst others, that the proceedings were initiated by Page No.# 3/7 misapplying purely definitional provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; that no offence of hunting or sanctuary violation was made out. In the aforesaid case, vide order dated 11.12.2025 the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue notice and call for the Trial Court records. 6. It is contended by the accused/applicant that while the accused/applicant was fully cooperating with the investigation in the earlier case, the respondent authorities have now registered the instant case i.e. ONP Case No.07/2025 under Sections 2/9/35/49(B) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 arising out of the same alleged transactions, same species and same chain of allegations. 7. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused/ applicant submits that the accused/applicant has been so implicated solely on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused persons purportedly recorded by Forest officials, wherein vague, general and unsubstantiated allegations have been made suggesting that the accused/applicant had, at some unspecified point of time, purchased fish from one Hindol Haldar or had supplied fish in the past. 8. In view of the aforesaid ONP Case No.07/2025, the accused/applicant is apprehending arrest particularly in view of the matter in which the offence report has been forwarded and arrest grounds had been prepared against other accused persons. The learned counsel further submits that the sections as invoked against the Page No.# 4/7 accused/applicant are, in fact, not applicable to the accused/ applicant as he is neither engaged into hunting nor he has committed any offence inside a national park. He further submits that Section 49B of the aforesaid Act of 1972 pre-supposes that the accused/applicant is engaged as a dealer or trader in scheduled animal articles or captive animals whereas the accused/applicant is not involved in any such business. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel submits that since he has been already cooperating with the earlier case registered against him, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation in the instant case also in the event he is given the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 9. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife submits that the co-accused has specifically implicated the accused/applicant of being involved in purchase of Channa Barca from 2024. He further submits that in his statement the co-accused Mofidul Islam has clearly implicated the accused/applicant. Therefore, there are serious materials against him in such activities of purchasing the endangered species i.e. Channa Barca and therefore, the accused/applicant should not be granted bail at this stage. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that by way of an amendment dated 19.10.2010 the State of Assam has made an amendment i.e. Wildlife (Protection) (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 wherein Section 51 has been amended to include even areas outside Page No.# 5/7 the boundary and the punishment has been enhanced to 7 years from 3 years and 10 years from 7 years including enhancement of fine. He further submits while referring to Section 51B of the Amended Act that there are conditions imposed before consideration of a prayer for bail which includes condition of a Court coming to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that there is a vast change which has been brought by amendment of the aforesaid Act by the State Government of Assam whereby any offence under the aforesaid Act has been taken very seriously and the bail can be granted only when the Court is convinced and satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 11. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 12. What is discernible in the instant case in hand is that the aforesaid Channa Barca was neither recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant nor was he found hunting of any such fishes inside any national park. The aforesaid case was filed against him only on the basis of a statement made by one of the co-accused stating that the accused/applicant is involved in buying such endangered species of Page No.# 6/7 fish. It is also seen that earlier also another case i.e. ONP Case No.03/2025 was registered against him on the same set of allegations wherein he was granted bail and the accused/applicant is also cooperating with the investigation. Taking into account the whole facts of the case as well as the conduct of the accused/applicant in the earlier case, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that a custodial detention of the accused/applicant may not be required in the instant case for the purpose of conducting investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/applicant should be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused/applicant in connection with instant case i.e. ONP Case No.07/2025, the accused/applicant shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the arresting authority subject to the following conditions :- (1) That the accused/applicant shall appear before the Investigating authority within a period of 10 (Ten) days from the date of this order. (2) That the accused/applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating authority as and when called for. (3) That the accused/applicant shall not try to hamper or Page No.# 7/7 tamper with the investigation of the case. 14. It is made clear that in the event of any violation of the bail conditions or non-cooperation with the investigation by the accused/applicant, the investigating authority will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for cancellation of bail to the accused/applicant. 15. With the aforesaid directions, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant