Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Looks like Nawab of Pataudi, a well-known cricket player and member of a royal family, is in deep trouble in India. He is charged with hunting an endangered animal, a black buck. The case was originally ‘covered up’ by the police in deference to the Nawab’s VIP status. But it was brought out in the open thanks to a zealous animal activist who dug up the buried carcass and proved that it was indeed shot. Now there is a big hue and cry for punishing the Nawab (who was nicknamed ‘Tiger Pataudi’ for killing a tiger when he was only sixteen). I agree that the Nawab should be punished. But how about proving him guilty first? Of the six members in the hunting team, is he the one who shot the buck? The process of Indian law enforcement really bothers me. The Indian Wildlife Conservations Act makes killing an endangered animal a ‘non-bailable’ offense, which means that one cannot be bailed after arrest, and can be kept in jail until the case is heard in the court. This can take many months, or even years, in the Indian court system. Effectively, you are punished as guilty until proven innocent!
The Nawab is now in hiding. I am sure that he will be caught and punished, setting an example of the 'fairness' of the Indian law.