哈尔的移动城堡

近日 广西百色边境管理支队移民管理警察 在边境辖区巡逻时 查获了47只国家二级重点保护野生动物食蟹猴9月1日20时许 该支队安宁边境派出所移民管理警察 在边境便道巡逻时 突然听见草丛中有不明响动 并伴随着“咕咕”怪叫声因地处边境一线 丛林密布 平时少有人员活动 察觉到异常的移民管理警察 当即沿声响方向搜索查探随即便嗅到一股刺鼻气味片刻后移民管理警察 在一灌木丛后 发现了8个颜色各异的网箱 经查看网箱里均装满了猴类动物现场及周边无任何人员经清点 网箱内共装有47只 疑似猴类的动物 移民管理警察立即联系 相关部门专业人员进行鉴定 确认该批猴类动物系 国家二级重点保护野生动物 食蟹猴目前，该批野生食蟹猴已按规定 移交动物保护部门进行处理 普法时刻《中华人民共和国刑法》第三百四十一条 【非法猎捕、杀害珍贵、濒危野生动物罪；非法收购、运输、出售珍贵濒危野生动物、珍贵、濒危野生动物制品罪】非法猎捕、杀害国家重点保护的珍贵、濒危野生动物的，或者非法收购、运输、出售国家重点保护的珍贵、濒危野生动物及其制品的，处五年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处罚金；情节严重的，处五年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金；情节特别严重的，处十年以上有期徒刑，并处罚金或者没收财产。

二 | 违反狩猎法规，在禁猎区、禁猎期或者使用禁用的工具、方法进行狩猎，破坏野生动物资源，情节严重的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者罚金。

三 | 违反野生动物保护管理法规，以食用为目的非法猎捕、收购、运输、出售第一款规定以外的在野外环境自然生长繁殖的陆生野生动物，情节严重的，依照前款的规定处罚。    New Delhi, Oct 15 (UNI) In a major setback to former Delhi University Professor, GN Saibaba and five others, the Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the order of the Bombay High Court which acquitted him under UAPA for alleged Maoist link.

The Supreme Court also refused the plea of Saibaba that he should be allowed to come out of jail and be put under house arrest and other restrictions as the court put on him. It asked Saibaba to file application for bail.

A Special bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice M R Shah and also comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi, passed the order, after hearing the submissions and arguments made by the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta for the Maharashtra Government and senior lawyer R Basant for Saibaba.

The Supreme Court, however, said it will hear the case in details, later on, keeping in view the sensitivity of the case.

Basant pleaded to the Supreme Court that Saibaba is 55-year-old and is wheelchair bound with 90 percent disability and was not involved in activity of waging war against the country as alleged by the Maharashtra government.

Basant said the SG alleged that he (Saibaba) was the brain behind it, but there is nothing to show his involvement.

To this, Justice Shah observed, "So far as terrorists or Maoists activities are concerned, the connection is more dangerous. Direct involvement is not necessary."

Justice Shah, said, this on the context of not of his involvement by Basant, and said, I said this not with respect to this specific case.

Further elaborating on the case, Basant said he was arrested in 2015, for over 7 years he has been under custody, except for a brief period of two times, where he was given bail on medical grounds.

"Generally in terrorists and Maoists activities, indirect involvement is more important than physical strength. Direct involvement may not be required," Justice Shah, leading the bench, said and dismissed the relief of acquittal granted by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court to Saibaba and others.

The SG Mehta, vehemently opposed the plea of Saibaba to put him under house arrest and not in jail and told the Supreme Court that now-a-days, such requests are being frequently made by "urban naxals" and the court should not allow such kind of pleas.

The Supreme Court asked Saibaba, to file appropriate application for bail. It also asked him to file his response on the appeal filed by the Maharashtra government seeking to cancel the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, and fixed the matter for further hearing after December 8, 2022.

"The facts are very very disturbing , supporting call for arms in Jammu and Kashmir, supporting overthrowing Parliament, arranging meetings with Naxalites, attacking our security forces etc," Mehta told the Supreme Court and seeking a direction to stay yesterday's Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court's order.

"There is no criminal antecedents whatsoever for him (Saibaba). He is leading a respectable life, may be ideologically inclined. There is nothing to show his involvement in any kind of illegal and or terror activities," Basant told the Supreme Court.

Basant, for Saibaba, further pleaded to the Supreme Court that he is a person aged 55 years. He is married person with family, 23 year old unmarried daughter. He is having 90 per cent disability and Paraplegic. He is having multiple other ailments which are judicially accepted and confined to my wheel chair.

SG Mehta said there are 6 accused. As far as accused number 6 (Saibaba) is concerned, he did not raise the ground of sanction at trial and was raised at the appellate stage.

"The purpose of sanction is to ensure at threshold that a person is not put to vexatious trial. This is not a vexatious trial. If after a full fledged trial persons are found guilty, there is no vexatious trial," Mehta said.

UNI SM SY SHK1625。供稿：广西边检总站百色边境管理支队 作者： 周日 王鹏宇 谭兆云