Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9177 (UTT)

ARJUN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

ABA/838/2023 · 2026-07-30

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010152852023 2026:UHC:6620 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/838/2023 Arjun Singh --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, 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.79/2023 registered at Police Station Bazpur District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 11, 39, 50 & 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act. 4. Learned 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 UKHC010152852023 2026:UHC:6620 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 29.12.2023, 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 29.12.2023, granted bail to a co- accused in connection with the present F.I.R. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this Court, vide interim order dated 10.10.2023, granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant; that, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is neither necessary nor warranted in the facts UKHC010152852023 2026:UHC:6620 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 10.10.2023, 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 10.10.2023 is made absolute. The applicant shall continue to remain on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions as contained in the order dated 10.10.2023, 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 MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf4 6f244f3e584af1449e430ef9 00bf09a6d67ebbd6426713 29b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f 1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c a8b66dd26690a191648ab5 d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.31 18:03:26 +05'30'