Contradictions in Prosecution Testimony Not a "Change in Circumstances" for Successive Bail in Wildlife Offence Cases under Section 483 BNSS, 2023
A Detailed Commentary on Devisingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 MPHC-GWL 29130

---

1. Introduction

The decision in Devisingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Criminal Case No. 50970 of 2025), delivered on 14 November 2025 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior (Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke), presents an important clarification on:

• The treatment of successive bail applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and
• The stringent approach to bail in wildlife offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly in light of the proviso to Section 51.

The applicant, Devisingh, faced prosecution in connection with Crime No. 795/2013, registered at Police Station Forest Department, Ghatigaon, District Gwalior, for alleged illegal hunting and possession of wildlife animal parts inside the Son Chidiya Sanctuary, Ghatigaon. He was arrested on 21 June 2025.

The case raises two interlinked issues:

1. Whether contradictions or concessions in the testimony of a key prosecution witness (examined after earlier bail rejections) constitute a “material change in circumstances” justifying a third bail application.
2. How the special bail framework under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, especially the proviso to Section 51, and the broader environmental and ecological considerations, interact with the general bail power under Section 483 BNSS.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the third bail application, holding that:

• The alleged contradictions in the deposition of PW-1 (Keshav Prasad) did not amount to a substantial change in circumstances after the rejection of earlier bail applications.
• The gravity of wildlife offences and the special statutory rigour in Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act justified a cautious and stern approach to bail.

This commentary explores the facts, the legal reasoning, the underlying statutory framework, and the broader implications of the judgment, especially in terms of how courts should approach successive bail applications in environmental crime cases under the new BNSS regime.

---

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Procedural Posture

• This was the third application for bail filed by the applicant under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
• The earlier bail applications were dismissed on merits on 11 July 2025 and 1 September 2025.
• The applicant was in custody in relation to offences under:
  • Sections 26, 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and
  • Sections 9, 27, 50, 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

2.2 Prosecution Allegations

According to the prosecution:

• Forest staff received information about illegal hunting within the Son Chidiya Sanctuary, Ghatigaon.
• A search operation was conducted.
• The applicant was allegedly apprehended while fleeing on a motorcycle.
• Upon search, the following were recovered:
  • The head and four legs of a spotted deer (Chital), and
  • Burlap bags tied to the vehicle.

2.3 Defence Arguments in the Third Bail Application

The defence relied on what it claimed to be a new ground: the deposition of PW-1, Keshav Prasad, who had been examined before the trial court after the earlier bail orders. The key points highlighted by the defence from PW‑1’s deposition included:

• PW-1 admitted that:
  • No expert report was placed before him confirming that the seized meat was of a Chital/deer.
  • From examining the meat of a wild animal, one cannot determine which specific wild species it belongs to without DNA analysis.
  • He did not see the applicant hunting himself.
  • No other person had stated to him that they had seen the applicant hunting.
• In paragraph 10 of his testimony, PW‑1 stated that:
  • The documents related to spot inspection were prepared at the range office, not at the spot.
  • No biological examination of the seized material was conducted.
• The defence also stressed:
  • The offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
  • The case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
  • The applicant is allegedly innocent and has been falsely implicated.
  • There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with witnesses if released on bail.
  • The trial is likely to be protracted, and continued detention is not justified.

2.4 Prosecution’s Opposition

The State opposed the bail application on multiple grounds:

• The alleged contradictions in PW‑1’s testimony do not demolish the prosecution case at this interlocutory (bail) stage.
• PW‑1’s inability to speak to expert reports or biological examination is only a partial aspect and does not undermine the entire case.
• The prosecution case is also supported by:
  • Recovery proceedings, and
  • Contemporaneous documents and other material gathered during investigation.
• The assessment of PW‑1’s credibility and the weight of his testimony should be undertaken at the stage of final appreciation of evidence, not during bail.
• The alleged offences involve illegal hunting and possession of protected wildlife material, which have serious environmental and public interest implications.
• There is a potential risk of influencing or intimidating witnesses, especially since **several witnesses are yet to be examined**.

2.5 Court’s Decision

The High Court dismissed the third bail application, holding inter alia that:

• The contradictions in PW‑1’s testimony do not constitute a “material change in circumstances” after the rejection of earlier bail applications.
• Evidence of a single witness (even with certain admissions) cannot be evaluated in isolation at the bail stage.
• The prosecution case rests not only on PW‑1, but also on documents, seizure proceedings, and other investigative material.
• The evidentiary value of PW‑1’s deposition, including inconsistencies, must be evaluated by the trial court at the stage of final adjudication.
• Offences relating to illegal hunting of protected species have serious consequences for wildlife preservation and ecological balance, and must be dealt with sternly.
• The applicant’s personal circumstances do not outweigh the nature and gravity of the allegations.
• Since several prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, there is a genuine risk of the applicant influencing or pressurising them.
• Given that the earlier bail applications were dismissed on merits and no substantial change in circumstances has been shown, no ground for grant of bail is made out.

The application under Section 483 BNSS was accordingly rejected.

---

3. Legal Analysis

3.1 Statutory Framework

3.1.1 Section 483 BNSS, 2023 – Bail Jurisdiction of High Court

The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is the procedural code that has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 483 BNSS is the provision that empowers the High Court (and in appropriate cases, the Court of Session) to grant bail in exercise of its wider discretionary powers.

While the exact textual reproduction of Section 483 is not set out in the order, it clearly operates as the analogue of the earlier Section 439 CrPC, conferring special powers on superior courts to grant bail. However, this power remains subject to:

• The general principles governing bail (nature and gravity of offence, prima facie case, flight risk, likelihood of tampering with evidence, etc.).
• Special statutory restrictions or conditions under particular enactments (such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act, NDPS Act, etc.).

3.1.2 Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Sections 9, 27, 50, 51

The relevant provisions in this case include:

• Section 9 – Prohibits hunting of wild animals specified in the Schedules (including Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II).
• Section 27 – Deals with restrictions on entry and activities in sanctuaries, which may be implicated if hunting/possession occurs inside a notified wildlife sanctuary.
• Section 50 – Provides the powers of search, seizure, and arrest to authorised officers for enforcement of the Act.
• Section 51 – Prescribes the penalties for contravention of the Act. Crucially, the Court notes the proviso to Section 51, which:
  • Imposes stringent consequences on conviction in relation to hunting of animals listed in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, including no release on probation in such cases; and
  • Stipulates a heightened threshold for grant of bail, requiring the Court to be satisfied that:
    • The accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and
    • The accused is not likely to commit any further offence while on bail.

Thus, Section 51 introduces a special statutory rigour for bail, similar in logic (though not identical in wording) to the special bail provisions seen in other special enactments like the NDPS Act. This severely narrows the scope for "routine" bail in serious wildlife offences.

3.1.3 Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Sections 26, 52

• Section 26 – Criminalises various acts in reserved forests, such as trespass, damage, felling, quarrying, hunting, or removing forest produce without lawful authority.
• Section 52 – Provides for seizure of property (timber, forest produce, tools, boats, vehicles, etc.) used in the commission of forest offences.

While these provisions are relevant in the factual matrix, the Court’s emphasis is primarily on the Wildlife (Protection) Act, given the seriousness of illegal hunting of protected species and the dedicated bail-related constraints in Section 51.

---

3.2 Issues Before the Court

The judgment, though concise, effectively addresses the following central legal issues:

1. Successive Bail and Change in Circumstances:
   Whether the post-rejection deposition of PW‑1, containing alleged contradictions and admissions favourable to the defence, amounts to a “substantial change in circumstances” justifying the third bail application under Section 483 BNSS.
2. Weight of Witness Contradictions at Bail Stage:
   To what extent can a High Court, at the bail stage, undertake an evidentiary evaluation of a prosecution witness’s testimony, particularly where the trial court has yet to complete the evidence and adjudicate upon credibility.
3. Environmental Crimes and Bail Discretion:
   How far ecological and public interest considerations, combined with the statutory rigour of Section 51 of the Wildlife Act, should influence bail in cases of alleged hunting of protected wildlife.

---

3.3 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.3.1 No “Material Change in Circumstances” Shown

The cornerstone of the Court’s reasoning is that the alleged contradictions or admissions by PW‑1 do not qualify as a material change in circumstances sufficient to reopen the bail question, especially when:

• The earlier two bail applications were already dismissed on merits, and
• The trial is still in progress with several witnesses yet to be examined.

The Court implicitly applies the well-settled principle that:

Once a bail application has been rejected on merits, a subsequent / successive bail application is maintainable only if the accused can demonstrate a fresh, substantial, and genuine change in circumstances occurring after the earlier rejection. Merely re-arguing the same grounds or relying on incremental developments normally incident to a trial does not suffice.

Here, the defence relied on the examination of PW‑1 and highlighted favourable portions. However, the Court held that:

• The deposition of one witness, even if partly helpful to the defence, is not in itself a transformative event that upends the prosecution case.
• The probative value of PW‑1’s admissions and inconsistencies is a matter for the trial court during final adjudication, not for a bail court to conclusively determine.

3.3.2 Evidence of a Single Witness Cannot Be Viewed in Isolation at Bail Stage

The Court pointedly observes that the prosecution case is not founded solely on PW‑1. It is also supported by:

• Seizure proceedings,
• Contemporaneous documentation, and
• Other material gathered during investigation.

This underscores an important doctrinal point: at the bail stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial. It performs only a prima facie assessment of the materials, without weighing and dissecting each testimonial detail as a trial court would.

Therefore, even if PW‑1:

• Admits to a lack of expert reports, or
• States that he did not actually see the applicant hunting, or
• Concedes that DNA analysis is required to determine species of meat,

these factors do not compel the High Court to hold that the prosecution case has collapsed or that the applicant must be released on bail. The prosecution’s narrative may still be sustained by:

• Recovery of animal parts,
• Possession in a protected area, and
• The circumstantial chain established by multiple witnesses and documents.

3.3.3 Stringent Approach to Wildlife Offences and Public Interest

The Court explicitly notes that the alleged offences concern the illegal hunting of a protected wildlife species within a sanctuary. This has:

• Serious implications for wildlife preservation;
• Consequences for ecological balance; and
• Impact on public interest at large.

On this basis, the Court states that such offences must be dealt with sternly. This is not merely rhetorical – it reflects an evolving judicial understanding that environmental and ecological harms qualify as serious harms to society, warranting a stricter stance on bail, particularly where:

• Protected species are involved, and
• The offence occurs within a notified sanctuary.

3.3.4 Proviso to Section 51 – Heightened Bail Threshold

The Court specifically refers to the proviso to Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, noting that:

• For offences involving animals in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, a person convicted is not entitled to release on probation.
• For bail, the Court must be satisfied that:
  • The accused is not guilty of such offence; and
  • He is not likely to commit any further offence while on bail.

Though the order does not spell out whether the deer (Chital) in question is a Schedule I/II animal, the reference to this proviso indicates the Court’s intention to treat such wildlife offences as presumptively grave, triggering a more cautious approach to bail.

The effect of this is that, in wildlife cases governed by Section 51’s proviso, the usual bail presumption in favour of liberty is substantially diluted. The onus effectively shifts towards an accused to demonstrate, at least prima facie, that:

• The accusations are not likely to be true, and
• He will not repeat similar offences if enlarged on bail.

3.3.5 Risk of Witness Intimidation and Interference with Trial

The Court also emphasizes that:

• Several prosecution witnesses remain to be examined.
• There is a genuine possibility of the applicant influencing or pressurising them if released on bail.

This is a classic bail consideration: protection of the integrity of ongoing proceedings. In the context of offences committed in forest or sanctuary areas, where enforcement often relies heavily on:

• Forest officials,
• Local witnesses, and
• Technical staff,

the potential for intimidation or inducement is a serious concern. The Court errs on the side of protecting the prosecution’s ability to present its case without obstruction.

---

3.4 Precedents Cited – and the Broader Jurisprudential Context

Important clarification: The order as reproduced does not explicitly cite any previous judicial decisions by name or citation. However, its reasoning is clearly grounded in well-established principles developed by the Supreme Court and High Courts on:

• Successive bail applications and “change in circumstances”, and
• Heightened scrutiny in special statutes that restrict bail.

While these judgments are not referred to in the order, it is useful, from a doctrinal perspective, to understand that the High Court’s approach aligns with earlier precedents such as (for context only):

• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528 – where the Supreme Court held that successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a substantial change in fact or law after the previous rejection.
• State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 – emphasising that repeated bail applications without new grounds amount to abuse of process.
• Various decisions emphasising the special nature of bail provisions in special enactments (like NDPS Act), where the accused must surmount an additional statutory threshold.

Again, these are not citations within the judgment itself, but the logical structure of the order in Devisingh mirrors these principles:

• Bail can be re-agitated only upon a genuine, substantial change in circumstances.
• Merely pointing to a witness’s partial or arguable weaknesses during ongoing trial does not ordinarily cross that threshold.
• The Court must respect the wider statutory policy of stringency in environmental and wildlife offences.

---

3.5 Impact and Significance

3.5.1 For Wildlife Crime Prosecutions

The decision strongly reinforces that in cases involving:

• Illegal hunting of protected species, and
• Offences within wildlife sanctuaries,

the High Court will treat the matter as one of grave environmental concern, not a routine criminal prosecution. Some key implications:

• Defence attempts to secure bail by isolating contradictions in the testimony of a single witness will face a high bar.
• The presence of physical recovery of animal parts and the location within a sanctuary can significantly weigh against bail.
• The proviso to Section 51 is given real content: courts must be affirmatively satisfied about non-guilt and non-recidivism before granting bail in serious wildlife offences.

3.5.2 For Successive Bail Under Section 483 BNSS

The judgment effectively affirms that the principles earlier governing successive bail applications under Section 439 CrPC continue, in substance, under Section 483 BNSS:

• The burden on the accused in a successive bail application is higher than in the first.
• A change in circumstance must be:
  • Substantial,
  • Relevant to the grounds for bail, and
  • Occurred after the previous rejection.
• Routine progression of trial – such as examination of a few witnesses with arguable weaknesses in their testimony – will generally not suffice on its own.

3.5.3 For Trial Strategy of Defence and Prosecution

• Defence counsel should note that:
  • Merely eliciting admissions from a single prosecution witness during cross-examination will not automatically secure bail, particularly in special statute offences.
  • To use trial developments as "changed circumstances", they must show that the prosecution case has been fundamentally compromised, not just dented.
• Prosecution can take guidance that:
  • Even where a key witness admits limitations (such as absence of expert reports), a robust documentary and seizure record can sustain opposition to bail.
  • Emphasising public interest, ecological harm, and statutory rigour is a valid and effective strategy in opposing bail in wildlife cases.

---

4. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

4.1 What Is a “Successive Bail Application”?

A successive bail application is a bail application filed after an earlier application has already been rejected by a competent court.

Courts generally hold that:

• A successive application is not barred, but
• It must be founded on a new, substantial ground that:
  • Was either not available earlier, or
  • Has genuinely arisen after the previous order.

Simply reiterating earlier grounds or arguing the same facts framed differently is considered an abuse of the process of court.

4.2 What Counts as a “Change in Circumstances”?

A change in circumstances typically means an event or development that:

• Significantly alters the factual or legal landscape
• Affects the factors the court considers relevant for bail, such as:
  • Strength or weakness of the prosecution case,
  • Risk of absconding,
  • Possibility of tampering with evidence,
  • Stage or delay in trial, etc.

Examples may include:

• Key prosecution witnesses turning hostile in a manner that effectively destroys the prosecution case.
• Very substantial delay in trial after bail rejection, with little realistic prospect of early conclusion.
• Emergence of new exculpatory evidence not earlier available.

In Devisingh, the Court held that the deposition of PW‑1, while containing some admissions, did not amount to such a fundamental change.

4.3 Why Are Wildlife Offences Treated Specially in Bail Matters?

Wildlife offences often involve:

• Irreversible harm to biodiversity and ecosystems,
• Threats to endangered or protected species, and
• Wider implications for environmental security and public interest.

Recognising this, the legislature has:

• Prescribed stringent punishments in Section 51 of the Wildlife Act.
• Imposed special bail restrictions in its proviso, requiring courts to be satisfied about non-guilt and non-recidivism before granting bail.

Courts therefore treat wildlife offences somewhat akin to other grave socio-economic offences, where an enhanced threshold for bail is justified due to the seriousness of the harm and the difficulty of reversing ecological damage.

4.4 Role of Witness Contradictions at the Bail Stage

It is common for defence counsel to highlight contradictions or omissions in witness testimony in an effort to show that:

• The prosecution case is weak, or
• There is room for reasonable doubt.

However, at the bail stage:

• The court only makes a prima facie assessment of evidence.
• It is not intended to carry out a detailed credibility analysis of each witness.
• Contradictions are more properly weighed at:
  • The stage of final arguments, and
  • In the judgment of conviction or acquittal.

In Devisingh, even though PW‑1 made several admissions favouring the defence, the Court considered it premature to treat those as determinative at the bail stage.

---

5. Overall Impact on Future Cases and the Legal Landscape

5.1 Consolidation of Strict Bail Jurisprudence in Wildlife Matters

The decision contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence that treats wildlife and environmental offences with:

• Greater seriousness, and
• More cautious bail standards.

Future applicants in similar wildlife cases in Madhya Pradesh – especially those linked to protected species in sanctuaries – can expect:

• Courts to lean on the proviso to Section 51 of the Wildlife Act, and
• Arguments based solely on partial contradictions in one witness’s testimony to be insufficient.

5.2 Interpretation of Section 483 BNSS in the Successive Bail Context

Even though the BNSS is a relatively new procedural code, the order demonstrates:

• The continuity of established bail principles from the CrPC era.
• That Section 483 BNSS will be applied in line with long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence on successive bail applications.

This decision therefore serves as a reference point for:

• Understanding how High Courts are likely to handle second or third bail applications under the BNSS, and
• Clarifying that the “change in circumstances” doctrine remains robustly in force.

5.3 Strengthening the Prosecution’s Position in Ongoing Trials

By explicitly acknowledging:

• The public interest element,
• The ecological dimension, and
• The risk of witness intimidation,

the judgment empowers prosecuting agencies and forest/wildlife authorities to:

• Resist bail more effectively in grave wildlife offences.
• Emphasise not only individual culpability but the broader environmental consequences of such crimes.

---

6. Conclusion

Devisingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh stands as a significant order at the intersection of:

• Criminal procedure under BNSS, and
• Wildlife and environmental protection law.

The core legal principle that emerges is:

Contradictions or limitations in the testimony of a single prosecution witness – even if favourable to the defence – do not, by themselves, constitute a “material change in circumstances” justifying a successive bail application under Section 483 BNSS, especially in serious wildlife offences governed by the stringent proviso to Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Key takeaways include:

• Successive bail applications must be grounded in a genuine, substantial change since the previous rejection; routine trial developments generally will not suffice.
• Courts are reluctant to engage in mini-trials at the bail stage, especially on the basis of the evidence of a solitary witness.
• Wildlife offences, particularly those involving protected species and sanctuaries, are treated as serious environmental crimes that justify a stricter, public-interest-oriented bail approach.
• The proviso to Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act is given clear operational effect, constraining bail unless the court is satisfied about non-guilt and non-recidivism.

In the broader legal context, this judgment reaffirms that under the BNSS regime, traditional criminal law doctrines on bail – particularly regarding successive applications and special statutes – continue to shape judicial discretion, while simultaneously integrating the growing recognition of environmental protection as an essential component of criminal justice policy.