Nagpur: The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Uttam Mudholkar, situated in Gadchiroli, has dismissed the interim bail application submitted by the alleged mastermind of tiger poachers, Mishram Raghunath Jakhar (81). Jakhar, who stands accused of orchestrating tiger poaching incidents across Gadchiroli and Chandrapur districts, sought temporary release pending trial.
The veteran mastermind’s nefarious activities reportedly involved blackmailing and extorting money from tiger poachers. On July 31, 2023, a joint operation conducted by the Maharashtra Forest Department and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) culminated in his arrest from his residence in Dwarka, Delhi. The operation led to the confiscation of Rs 14.80 lakh in cash from Jakhar.
Wenesday Rate
Wed 25 Dec. 2024
Initially, Jakhar was granted transit bail by a Metropolitan Magistrate in Dwarka, which mandated his presence in the Gadchiroli court by August 3. However, rather than adhering to this directive, he opted to file an interim anticipatory bail application through his legal representative, PC Sammaddkar, before Additional Sessions Judge Mudholkar. This application was slated for review on August 5.
Jakhar is facing charges under multiple sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, including Sections 9, 39, 48, 49B, 50, and 51. The charges stem from an incident on July 23, wherein two tigers were poached in Ambeshivni forest, with over 13 individuals subsequently apprehended. Jakhar’s alleged involvement in these offenses emerged through the course of the investigation, prompting his arrest on July 31.
In his defense, Jakhar maintained his innocence and expressed concerns about potential arrest by the investigating agency. Citing his age, 81, and his purported health ailments, Jakhar argued that he posed no flight risk if granted bail. He emphasized his permanent place of residence and asserted his commitment to remain accessible to the legal proceedings.
The court, after evaluating the evidence presented, determined that Jakhar’s involvement in the alleged wildlife offenses was evident. Given the gravity of the charges, which involve the hunting of tigers within protected forest areas, the court concluded that interim protection in the form of anticipatory bail was not advisable. The court noted the serious nature of the offenses and the accused’s involvement, leading to the denial of interim bail.
Chatgaon RFO was issued a notice asking why the anticipatory bail, as prayed by the applicant, should not be granted.
