1 CGHC010302442026 2026:CGHC:34509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7159 of 2026 Deepak Lal Chandani S/o Bhojraj Lal Chandani, Aged About 44 Years R/o Sindhi Colony Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Forest Range O1cer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. This is the 7rst bail application 7led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with POR No. 17790/04 registered by the Forest Range O1cer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o<ences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2026, acting upon a con7dential information, a joint team of the State Forest Flying KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Squad and the Forest Range o1cials conducted a raid at the applicant's pet shop namely "Pet Point House" situated near Guru Nanak Darbar, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur. It is alleged that the forest o1cials, posing as decoy customers, inquired about turtles, whereupon the applicant allegedly produced four live turtles kept in a blue plastic bucket. Immediately thereafter, the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot and demanded documents authorizing possession and sale of the said turtles. As the applicant allegedly failed to produce any valid document, the turtles were identi7ed by the forest o1cials as "Indian Roofed Turtles", a Schedule-I protected species under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Consequently, the present o<ence was registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 19.07.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is a bona 7de businessman running a licensed pet shop namely "Pet Point House". He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has never indulged in any illegal trade of protected wildlife. He further submits that the alleged recovery has already been e<ected and nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant. It is also submitted that the o<ences alleged carry a maximum punishment of seven years and, therefore, the investigating agency ought to have followed the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI before e<ecting the arrest. He further submits that the applicant is in 3 jail since 19.07.2026, investigation is substantially complete and his further custodial detention is not required. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that four live Indian Roofed Turtles, which are protected Schedule-I species under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, were recovered from the possession of the applicant's shop and the applicant failed to produce any valid licence or document authorizing their possession or sale. However, learned State counsel fairly submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of o<ence, period of detention of the applicant since 19.07.2026 and the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has not been 7led before the competent Court however, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and the alleged recovery has already been e<ected and nothing further remains to be recovered from him and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Deepak Lal Chandani, involved in POR No. 4 17790/04 registered by the Forest Range O1cer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the o<ences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 7le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 7xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date 7xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su1cient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date 7xed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, 5 before the trial Court on the dates 7xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without su1cient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. O1ce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal