MANIRAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010398052026 2026:CGHC:45854
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9646 of 2026
1 - Maniram S/o Ratiram Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Deharipathra, Police Station Pandatarai Tehsil Bodla Distt- Kabirdham
(C.G.)
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
2 - Ganpat S/o Birjhu Baiga Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Deharipathra, Police Station Pandatarai Tehsil Bodla Distt- Kabirdham
(C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Fores Division Bodla, Distt- Kabirdham
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
29/10/2026
1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for
grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with
P.O.R. No. 21942/11, registered at Police Station- Forest Division
Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offences punishable under

2
Sections 2(16), 9, 39(1), 39(3), 44, 50, 51(1), 51(2) and 52 of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, on 29.06.2026, the Forest
Department officials received secret information regarding the illegal
hunting of a Axis Deer (Chital), a protected wild animal, by co-
accused Kamleshu Patel. Upon conducting a search at his house,
the officials allegedly seized two axes, nylon rope, a blood-stained
bag and meat kept in a steel container. During the course of
investigation, co-accused Kamleshu Patel, in his memorandum
statement, disclosed that he had hunted the Axis Deer (Chital)
along with Shyamlal Patel, Sanat Patel and the present applicants,
Maniram Baiga and Ganpat Baiga and that the meat was
subsequently distributed amongst them. Accordingly, the aforesaid
forest offences were registered and the applicants were arrested on
30.06.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants
are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
He would further submit that the alleged meat and other articles
were seized from the exclusive possession of co-accused
Kamleshu Patel and no incriminating article has been recovered
from the present applicants. Their implication is based primarily on
the memorandum statement of the co-accused and the species
identification report is still awaited. He would also submit that co-
accused Kamleshu Patel and Sanat Patel have already been
granted bail by the learned Sessions Court and that the applicants

3
stand on a similar footing however, the applicant Maniram has one
criminal antecedent of theft nature but the applicant Ganpat has no
criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the
applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
for grant of bail and submit that the applicants were involved in the
illegal hunting of a protected wild animal and that, as disclosed in
the memorandum statement of co-accused Kamleshu Patel, the
meat was distributed amongst them and further the applicant
Maniram has one criminal antecedent and Ganpat has no criminal
antecedents. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicants, the fact
that the alleged meat and other articles were seized from the
possession of co-accused Kamleshu Patel, the applicants’
implication being primarily based on the memorandum statement of
the co-accused and the fact that two co-accused persons have
already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court on similar
allegations, this Court finds that the applicants are also entitled for
grant of bail. It is also relevant that applicant Maniram Baiga has
one criminal antecedent, whereas applicant Ganpat Baiga has no
criminal antecedents. Accordingly, without further commenting upon

4
the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
applicants.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed . It is
directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be
released on bail on the following conditions:-
(i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &
(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to them by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal