The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a bail application submitted by individuals accused of illegally hunting a female tiger by setting up electric wires. The Court emphasized that this act poses a significant threat to both nature and the forest ecosystem.

They were charged under Sections 2(16) and (36), read with Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(A), 49(B), 51, 52, and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, as amended in 2022, by the State Tiger Strike Force, Jabalpur.

In his ruling, Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal stressed that the hunting of a Schedule-I wild animal, such as a tiger, is not a trivial offense. The Court noted that this crime presents a serious threat to both nature and the environment, thus warranting the continued detention of the accused.

“The hunting of wild animal like tiger in a planned manner cannot be treated as a normal offence as same poses threat to nature and forests. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail”

The applicants, who have been in custody since August 2023, were arrested by the State Tiger Strike Force after 49 bones, 14 nails, and 31 mustache hairs of a tiger were found in their possession, as confirmed by a DNA examination. Based on their disclosure memo, the carcass of the deceased tiger was also seized. Additionally, nine pieces of GI pipe wires were recovered.

The counsel for the applicants argued that they had not committed any offense, claiming their innocence and alleging false implication. It was asserted that nothing was seized from their possession and that the seizure was not conducted in the presence of any independent witnesses. The counsel also contended that all witnesses were from the Forest Department and were members of the State Tiger Strike Force, which raised doubts about the credibility of the complainants' account. Therefore, it was argued that, in the absence of independent witnesses, the applicants should be granted bail.

Despite rejecting their bail plea, the Court recognized the extended detention of the applicants and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, with an order to conclude the trial within six months.