2025:UHC:6042 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/763/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Neeti Rana, learned counsel for the applicant through V.C. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Bijendra Singh, S/o Dal Singh is praying for anticipatory bail in relation to Case Crime/R.C. No. 05/Lacchiwala/2025-26 dated 25.05.2025 wherein the present applicant and his wife Smt. Pooja Devi and one Dharmendra have been implicated for recovery of raw and cooked meat of “Sambhar” which was recovered from the custody of Ms. Pooja Devi. 4. As per the prosecution, an FIR was lodged alleging therein that on the basis of the information received from the informer, the complainant and his associates made search of the house of the applicant at Bajawala Markham Grant Doiwala, and after search and seizure two chopped heads of Sambhar animal were recovered and they also recovered cooked meat in pressure cooker and not only this chopped raw meat of Sambhar was recovered from the fridge kept in a room and on interrogation it was found that the raw/cooked meat is of wild animal Sambhar which was kept by the accused in the form of packets in bags in his house for the purpose of selling and on weighing it was 18.712 kg. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been 2025:UHC:6042 falsely implicated and the alleged recovery is false and planted one. She also argued that the search was done without any warrant. She further argued that no offence punishable under Section 9, 39(3) and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act are made out. She further argued that co-accused Pooja Devi, wife of the applicant was arrested by the forest official and was enlarged on bail by the learned In-charge Session Judge, Dehardun on 13.06.2025. 6. On the other side, Mr. Tumul Nailwal, learned A.G.A. seriously opposed the instant anticipatory bail application and submits that the offence, as alleged, are serious in nature and furthermore, recovery was also made in the presence of the witness and there are sufficient evidence against the applicant and the co-accused for constituting the offences punishable under Section 9, 39(3) and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, therefore, applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration seriousness of the allegation, particularly the fact that the alleged offence pertains to the Wild Life Protection Act and the co-accused was already arrested and enlarged on bail, therefore, the present applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:6042