30.07.2026 Item No.3 Court No.9 CHC (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.R.M. (R) 30 of 2026 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with POR No.28/JPS of 2025-2026 dated 06.11.2025 under Sections 9/39/49(b)/51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 corresponding to C.R. Case No.2102/2025. And In the matter of : Binod Roy ...… petitioner Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, Advocate Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik, Advocate Ms. Jasmin Haque, Advocate Ms. Nipa Das, Advocate Mr. Aminoor Hossain, Advocate ...for the petitioner Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Kallol Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Roumyadip Saha, Advocate …for the Sate 1. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that huge quantity of Pangolin scales were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 265 days. He prays for bail. 3. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the trial of the case has already commenced. Charges stood framed and the case is 2 presently fixed for evidence after charge on and from August 4, 2026. 4. Relying upon (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 604 (Sansar Chand Versus State of Rajasthan), it is submitted by the learned advocate for the State that confessional statement of the petitioner recorded while in custody is admissible in terms of provisions of Wild Life Protection Act. He also submits that in a case involving wild life, the case should be handled with a different perspective. He opposes the prayer for bail. 5. It transpires from the materials on record that huge quantity of Pangolin scales were recovered from the possession of the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act. The case was started against the petitioner and prosecution report was submitted. The petitioner was taken into custody. After submission of the prosecution report, evidence before charge was recorded. On the basis of the materials obtaining from the evidence before charge, charges stood framed against the present petitioner. The case is fixed for examination of the witnesses after charge. The trial of the case is on the verge of completion. 6. In Sansar Chand (supra), it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that- “29. There is no absolute rule that an extra- judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial 3 confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P., Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 & 42), Siva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.]. 30. In the present case, the extra-judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 32. Before we part with this case, we would like to request the Central and State Governments and their agencies to make all efforts to preserve the wildlife of the country and take stringent actions against those who are violating the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, as this is necessary for maintaining the ecological balance in our country.” 7. In consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the trial of the case is on the verge of completion being fixed for evidence after charge, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 8. Consequently, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. 4 9. CRM(R) 30 of 2026 is dismissed. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)