VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Uttarakhand High Court 2026 › High Court of Uttarakhand

Anil v. State of Uttarakhand

DISPOSED
Court
High Court of Uttarakhand
Decided
30 July 2026
Bench
Alok Mahraauthor
Case no.
ABA 1168/2023

Follow Uttarakhand High CourtFollow Alok Mahra

Judgment

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

ABA/1168/2023

Anil --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶2Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶3By means of present application, applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. being Rang Case No.79/Tanda/2023-24 registered at Police Station Tanda Forest Range, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 11, 39-B, 49, 50 & 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, according to the prosecution case as set out in the impugned F.I.R., a joint team comprising officials of the Uttarakhand Special Task Force (S.T.F.), the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, and the Terai Central Forest Division intercepted a truck allegedly travelling from Kashipur towards Rudrapur. It is alleged that, after chasing the vehicle, the joint team apprehended three persons travelling

therein and recovered tiger skin and tiger bones from the truck. It is further alleged that, during interrogation, the apprehended persons disclosed the name of the present applicant as being connected with the alleged offence.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident and has not been arrested from the spot; that, his implication rests solely upon alleged confessional statements made by the co-accused persons who were apprehended by the police team. He would further submit that no specific overt act or role has been attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime; that, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated

10.10.2023, has already granted bail to a co-accused in the same F.I.R., and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity.

¶6Learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail application. However, he does not dispute the fact that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated

10.10.2023, granted bail to a co-accused in connection with the present F.I.R.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this Court, vide interim order dated

29.12.2023, granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant; that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is neither

necessary nor warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, it is prayed that the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant be made absolute.

¶8Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant has remained protected under the interim order dated

29.12.2023, there is nothing on record to suggest that his custodial interrogation is now required for the purposes of investigation. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the interim protection granted to applicant deserves to be confirmed. No opinion is being expressed on the merits of the case.

¶9Accordingly, interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant vide order dated 29.12.2023 is made absolute. The applicant shall continue to remain on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions as contained in order dated

29.12.2023, subject to compliance thereof and subject to any other condition(s), if imposed by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶11Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 30-07-2026 mamta

MAM TA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bfti 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8ddtiti 4efti, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.31 18:04:04 +05'30'

Source: High Court of Uttarakhand, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.