1 CGHC010212932026 2026:CGHC:28657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5016 of 2026 1 - Mukesh S/o Pilaru, Aged About 28 Years Village Urputti, P.S. Keregaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Narsu S/o Pilaru, Aged About 28 Years Village Urputti, P.S. Keregaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - Duleshwa S/o Dhaniram Aged About 28 Years Village Urputti, P.S. Keregaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Tulsi S/o Bhansingh Aged About 60 Years Village Urputti, P.S. Keregaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Maiyatu S/o Jhangalu, Aged About 55 Years Village Urputti, P.S. Keregaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Forest Range Officer, Forest Range, Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS system) RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 For Applicants : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. The present is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Forest Crime No. 13454/03 registered at Police Station-Forest Range, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 11, 12, 39, 40(2), 48A, 49A, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. As per the prosecution case, acting on confidential information regarding the illegal purchase and sale of Sambar (Rusa unicolor) meat, the Forest Department conducted a raid at Bazarpara, Kondagaon on 21.02.2026, during which Sambar meat was allegedly seized from the possession of co-accused Usha Bai Rajak and Sangeeta Nirmalkar. Consequently, Forest Crime No. 13454/03 was registered against them under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. During the investigation, the present five applicants were implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused, alleging that they had illegally hunted the Sambar and sold its meat in 16 parts for ₹1,600/-. Significantly, no incriminating article or Sambar meat 3 was recovered from the possession of any of the present applicants. Thereafter, the applicants were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 11, 12, 39, 40(2), 48A, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, alleging illegal hunting of Sambar in Reserved Forest Block No. 178 of Kergaon Range, Dhamtari Forest Division, and sale of its meat to the co-accused. On the basis of above, FIR was lodged against the applicants and they have been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no Sambar meat or any other incriminating material has been recovered from their possession and that they have been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the co-accused, which, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, cannot form the basis of their prosecution. The applicants have remained in custody since 22.02.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that Applicant No. 1, Mukesh, Applicant No. 4, Tulsi and Applicant No. 5, Maiyatu have one criminal antecedent each under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which has also been disclosed by the learned counsel for the applicants in the bail application. It is submitted that the said antecedents 4 indicate that these applicants are habitual offenders. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, further considering the one criminal antecedent under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which is still pending, the fact that they have been in judicial custody since 22.02.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let the applicants, namely Mukesh, Narsu, Duleshwa, Tulsi and Maiyatu, involved in Forest Crime No. 13454/2003 registered at Police Station-Forest Range, District Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 11, 12, 39, 40(2), 48A, 49A, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, 5 it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such 6 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi