Hunting Protected Wildlife Species Has Serious Ecological Impact, Must Be Dealt With Sternly: MP High Court Denies Bail To Accused

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Friday (November 14), dismissed the bail application of a man accused of illegal hunting in Son Chidiya Sanctuary, Ghatigaon, observing that offences involving wildlife poaching have grave implications for wildlife preservation and ecological balance and must,  therefore, be addressed sternly.

The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed;

"This Court notes that the offences alleged relate to illegal hunting of a protected wildlife species, which has serious implications for wildlife preservation and ecological balance. Such offences affect public interest at large and must be dealt with sternly". 

Per the prosecution, the forest officials received intelligence about illegal hunting activities in the Sanctuary. During a search operation, the applicant was allegedly caught fleeing on his motorcycle. The forest staff allegedly recovered the heads and four legs of a spotted deer and four other burlap bags tied to the vehicle. 

The applicant was subsequently arrested on June 21, 2025, inconnection with offences regsistered for committing prohibited acts (Section 26) and seizure of property liable to confiscation (Section 52) of the Indian Forest Act, 1972 as well as prohibition on hunting (Section 9), restriction on entry into the sanctuary (Section 27) and power of entry, search, arrest and detention (Section 50) and Penalties (Section 51) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 

This was the applicant's third bail application, grounded on the assertion that the testimony of a key prosecution witness contains significant contradictions. Referring to the witness's testimony, it was argued that no expert report had ever been placed before the witness to establish that the meat allegedly seized was from any deer species. The witness further admitted that the species of wild animal cannot be identified merely from its meat and that sich determination cannot be identified merely from its meat and that such determination is possible only through DNA analysis. 

The counsel appearing for the State opposed the application, submitting that the prosecution's case was not based solely on the witness's testimony but was rather supported by the recovery proceedings, contemporaneous documents and other material collected during the investigation. 

The bench observed that the alleged contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was not sufficient to constitute a material change in the circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the applicant's bail. 

The bench emphasized that the evidence of a single witness cannot be considered in isolation. The prosecution's case was not founded solely on witnesses' testimony but was supported by contemporaneous documents, seizure proceedings, and other material collected during the investigation. 

Further, the bench noted that the evidentiary value of the witness testimony would be appreciated by the trial court during the final adjudication.

The court also highlighted that the offences related to alleged hunting must be dealt with sternly as it has serious implications for wildlife preservation and ecological balance, and therefore affect the public interest at large. 

Thus, the bench directed; 

"Having regard to the fact that the earlier bail applications have already been dismissed on merits, and no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated, this Court is of the view that no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the present third application filed by the applicant stands dismissed". 

Case Title: Devisingh v State [MCRC-50970-2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 249

For Applicant: Advocate Dhara Singh Meena 

For State: Public Prosecutor Dinesh Savita 

Click here to read/download the Order