B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THE applicant Mum­taj has applied for bail for offences under Section 49(B)/51 Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (Van Jeev Sanrakshan Adhiniyam), under Section 10/15 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sec­tions 429and 411,1.P.C.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate for the applicant and Sri Girdhar Nath, learned Counsel for the C.B.I, and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for Wild Life Protection Society, New Delhi. According to the prosecution, on 11-1-2000 the houses of Shabbir and Wahid were searched by a police party headed by C.O. Fatehpur. Shabbir and Wahid were, however, not available. Ac­cused Mohammad Ramzan, Mumtaz Ahmad (applicant), Hamid Ali and Smt. Jaibun Nishan were found in the house. On search more than 400 skins of wild animals, hundreds of teeth and thousands of nails and other precious parts of the body were recovered from their houses. Apart from this, guns were also recovered, which were kept for use for hunting the wild animals. Instruments and machines for taking out and drying the skins and other parts of the body were also recovered. According to the prosecution, the price of the articles recovered is crores of rupees and it is alleged in the affidavit filed by Sri Nikhil Gupta, Inspector C.B.I. that the seizure was one of the biggest hauls of wild life skins/products of recent times and pertains to trade of each and every part of wild life animals.
(3.) IT is contended that applicant Mumtaz is not the owner of the house from where the recovery of articles was made. That no recovery was made from his possession. That he is in jail since 12-1-2000. That therefore, no offence has been committed by the applicant. It is further contended that co-accused Mohammad Ramzan and Smt. Jaibun Nishan, who were also arrested along with the ap­plicant, have already been released on bail in Bail Applications Nos. 3442 of 2000 and 2564 of 21)00. That the applicant is, there­fore, entitled to bail on the ground of parity.;