1

M.Cr.C.No.16516/2017
30.10.2017:
Shri Pramod Kumar Thakre, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. K. Shrivastava, panel lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance with Court order dated 10.10.2017, he has filed copies
of the order sheets of the trial Court.
Heard on I.A. Nos. 19468/2017 and 19944/2017 for taking
additional documents on record.
For the reasons stated in the applications, these are
allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of
petitioner Ajab Singh Yadav in Forest Crime No.1635/2014
registered by Forest Circle, South Beet Sikarpur, Police Station-
Rahatgarh, District- Sagar under Section 9/51 of the Wild Life
Protection Act.
As per the prosecution case, co-accused Syed Baddu Husain
was surrounded and caught by the force of forest department in the
Jungle. About 250 kgs. beef of blue bull and one firearm with live
and burnt cartridges and a Baka were seized from his possession.
Other co-accused persons Fasal, Ahsan and Umar Ali managed to
escape. Co-accused Syed Baddu stated before the competent forest
authorities that earlier also he had killed five blue bulls along with
other co-accused persons. Petitioner Ajab Singh used to give them
location of wild animals and invite them for hunt. Arvind Yadav,
younger brother of petitioner Ajab Singh also sometimes
 2

accompanied the accused persons on hunt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only
material against the petitioner is the statement made by the forest
authorities that co-accused Syed Baddu Husain on 14.6.2017,
wherein he has stated that the petitioner used to give location of
wild animals to Syed Baddu Husain and other co-accused persons
and invite them for hunt. This is a general allegation and does not
specifically state that on the present occasion also, the petitioner
had invited the accused persons for hunt or had given them the
location of blue bulls. It has also been submitted that the charge
sheet had been filed against the petitioner showing to him to be
absconding. The Court immediately issued arrest warrant and when
it was not executed, the petitioner was declared as absconder and
an arrest warrant in perpetuity was issued against him. The
petitioner is a Sarpanch of the village and has been going about his
daily activities in the village. The authorities did not ever try to
arrest him. In support of aforesaid contention, the petitioner has
filed proceedings of the meetings held and attended by him during
the relevant period. Inviting attention to the Court proceedings, it
has been argued that no proceedings under the provisions of
Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were conducted. The petitioner
has not been declared a proclaimed offender. The Court has simply
directed that he would be proceeded against under Section 299 of
the Cr.P.C., which is not the same as declaring an accused an as
absconder under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.; therefore, the
principle laid down in the cases of Lavesh Vs. State (N.C.T of
Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 and State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma
AIR 2014 S.C. 626 do not create a bar on anticipatory bail to the
 3

petitioner.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State on the other
hand has opposed the application.
However, keeping in view the view the facts and
circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner especially the
facts that no proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
were held against petitioner and as well as the nature of allegations
and evidence collected in support of those allegations, in the
opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on
behalf of petitioner Ajab Singh Yadav is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of his arrest, petitioner shall
be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to
the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before
the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with
the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified copy as per rules.

(C. V. Sirpurkar)
Judge
ahd

MOHD AHMAD
2017.10.31 04:46:13 -07'00'