'Birdman of Mumbai' moves Bombay High Court to quash FIR accusing him of hunting, purchasing wild birds

Birdman of Mumbai, Pradeep D’Souza, has moved the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) lodged by the city forest department accusing him of hunting and purchasing wild animals and for other alleged violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA)..The factual matrix was that the 47-year-old, who claimed to be the most sought after bird rescuer in Mumbai, used to rescue and rehabilitate trapped, sick and injured birds on a daily basis.D’Souza claimed that even the forest officials sought his help for rehabilitation of birds as the government rehabilitation infrastructure was inadequate.In the petition filed through Advocate Amrita Nair, D’Souza pointed out that in March 2020, he had submitted a list of the birds rescued by him as was stipulated under the WPA.Despite repeated efforts seeking help from the forest department to rehabilitate the injured birds, his attempts were unanswered leaving him with no option but to keep the birds, till they were fit to be released..However, on October 2021, D’Souza’s house was raided by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau and the State Forest Department.They seized 110 kites, 43 parrots, 8 bats, 7 barn owls, 2 night herons and a sea gull.The plea said that birds when seized were not fit to survive in the wild..After such raid, D’Souza was booked under Sections 9 (prohibition of hunting), 39 (wild animals to be government property), 48A (restrictions on transportation of wild life) and 51 (penalties) of the WPA in 2021.The offences are punishable with imprisonment upto three years and/or fine upto ₹25,000.After his arrest on October 5, D’Souza got bail from the Metropolitan Magistrate on October 9.Thereafter, D’Souza moved the High Court for quashing of the FIR on the following grounds: That while granting bail, the Magistrate noted that D’Souza was indeed providing care and shelter to the injured birds and that the forest department had not responded to the letter wherein D’Souza had submitted the list of the birds he had with him. That he was merely carrying out his fundamental duties under Article 51A of the Constitution;That he has not hunted or procured wildlife with an intention to sell or make monetary gains.The plea is likely to be heard on August 2, 2022.