Uttarakhand High Court

ABA/1168/2023 of ANIL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 30 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

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

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

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.

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

3. By means of the present application, the 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.

4. 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.

5. Learned 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 the 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.

6. Learned 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.

7. would submit that this Court, vide interim order dated 29.12.2023, granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant; that, the 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.

8. Having 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 the applicant deserves to be confirmed. No opinion is being expressed on the merits of the case.

9. Accordingly, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the 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 the 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.

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

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

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

MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd00 4ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.31 18:04:04 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead