Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Sandeep Singh Parihar in Wildlife Protection Case
Court cites insufficient evidence linking Parihar to illegal hunting and consumption of Sambar, a Schedule-I protected animal.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to Sandeep Singh Parihar, also known as Ravi Singh, who was accused under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for the alleged hunting and consumption of Sambar, a Schedule-I wild animal. The decision was delivered by Justice Devnarayan Mishra in Jabalpur on September 18, 2025.
The court's decision came after an analysis of the prosecution's evidence, which failed to establish a prima facie link between Parihar and the alleged wildlife crime. The case was rooted in an incident at the PWD Guest House, Nagod, where forest officials, acting on a tip-off, claimed that a party involving the consumption of Sambar meat was underway. However, the prosecution could not provide concrete evidence that the meat was indeed from a Sambar or that Parihar participated in the hunting.
Parihar's counsel, Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He contended that Parihar was only at the guest house to pick up his tenant, Darpan Singh, and had no involvement in the alleged crime. The court noted that the forensic report linking the meat to Sambar was still pending and that the forest officials failed to identify the source of the hunt.
The prosecution, represented by Shri K.S. Patel, opposed the bail application, citing Parihar's criminal record. However, the court found that the cases in Parihar's record were unrelated to wildlife offences and did not justify denying bail in the absence of substantial evidence.
Justice Mishra granted bail to Parihar under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the condition that he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount. The court also directed Parihar to comply with Section 480(3) of the BNSS during the trial.
This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in wildlife protection cases, emphasizing that mere allegations without substantial proof cannot suffice for continued detention.
Bottom Line:
Bail was granted to the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case linking the applicant to the alleged hunting and consumption of Sambar, a Schedule-I wild animal under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Sections 2, 3, 39, 44b, 50, 52, and 57
