Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010014182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./211/2025 SRI PRASANTA KAKATI AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE PUNARAM KAKATI VILL-KUHIMARI, P.O. MAGONI, P.S.GOHPUR, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN-784168 2: SRI PARIKHIT DAS S/O SRI LUHIT DAS VILL- KUHIMARI P.O. MAGONI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-784168. 3: SRI RATUL KAKATI S/O LATEPUNARAM KAKATI VILL-KUHIMARI P.O. MAGONI P.S.GOHPUR DIST.BISWANATH ASSAM PIN-78416 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PP, WILDLIFE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI, Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D GOGOI(SPL. PP, WILDLIFE, ASSAM), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Prasanta Kakati, 2. Sri Parikhit Das and 3. Sri Ratul Kakati, who has been detained behind the bars since 17.01.2025 in connection with Offence Report No. GPR/01 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 under Section 9, 48(A),49(B), 51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 3. The accusation against the present petitioners is that they were found in illegal possession of meat of Hog Deer (Axis Porcinus) which is a schedule-I animal under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not involved in either hunting or killing any Hog Deer. They were only found in possession of the meat of the Hog Deer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are local inhabitants of Kahiabari Village under Gohpur Police Station and they are ready to cooperate in the investigation. He also Page No.# 3/4 submits that considering the period of detention undergone by the petitioners, they may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Wildlife, has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners on the ground that there are incriminating materials against the present petitioners and the main accused, who hunted the Deer, is yet to be apprehended. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. It appears from the record that though the offence involved in this case is of very sensitive nature as it pertains to schedule-I animal of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, however, considering the fact that the petitioners are detained behind the bars for the last 26 days. At this stage, it is not clear as to whether they were involved in the hunting of the Hog Deer or not. Hence, if they cooperate in the investigation, their further custodial detention may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation. 8. In view of the above, the above-named petitioners are hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with a suitable surety of like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Gohpur with the following conditions that:- (a) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Gohpur without prior written permission from him/her; (b) the petitioners shall not hamper with the investigation and tamper with Page No.# 4/4 the evidence of the case; (c) the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. 10. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant