Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy not available as a matter of right. In cases involving organized illegal trade and substantial prima facie evidence of culpability, courts must decline relief if the accused fails to cooperate and the investigation follows established statutory procedures.

ORAL ORDER

1) By way of filing the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant–accused has prayed to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in connection with F.O.R. No. MSKC-2/10/2024-25 dated 14.06.2024, registered with Mandvi, Surat, Forest Department, for the offences punishable under Sections 2(4), 30,33, 39, 41(2-b), 42, 42, 55, 61, 63 of The Indian Forest Act read with Section 2(1), 2(5), 2(36), 2(37), 39, 50, 51, 52 and 57 of The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

2) Heard learned advocate Mr. P.B. Shah for the applicant and learned PP Mr. Hardik Dave with special PP Dr. M.S. Kachhawa with learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the Respondent – State.

3) Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the present anticipatory bail application is a successive bail application. He submits that the applicant approached the Court of Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 691 of 2024 to seek relief of anticipatory bail and the Ld. 7th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli was pleased to reject the same qua the applicant vide order dated 04.09.2024. Thereafter, the applicant had instituted Criminal Misc. Application No. 7182 of 2025 which came to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh application, as during the pendency of the proceedings the Investigating Officer concerned had submitted a report seeking addition of another provision of law. Due to the invocation of additional offences, the earlier application came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an anticipatory bail application vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 752 of 2025 before the Ld. 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.10.2025. The certified copy of judgement/order is placed on record.

3.1) Learned Advocate Mr. Shah submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence, as the officers of the Forest Department are having an axe to grind against him. He further submits that according to the prosecution case, on one occasion the officers of the Forest Department noticed a truck moving in suspicious circumstances and therefore, intercepted the said vehicle. Thereafter, during the search of the vehicle, it was found that khair wood was loaded in the said truck. As the said goods fall under the category of scheduled forest produce, an F.O.R. came to be registered against a total of eight persons and a copy of the said report was submitted before the competent Court. Thereafter, after obtaining necessary permission from the competent Court, investigation was commenced. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of the alleged incident. On that day, the applicant was outside the country as he had gone on pilgrimage (Hajj) along with his family members. According to him, the applicant has been implicated as an accused solely on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused before the officer concerned.

3.2) Learned Advocate Mr. Shah further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that a Range Forest Officer has no jurisdiction to investigate an alleged criminal offence in view of the definition of “investigation” as provided under Section 2(L) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The term “investigation” includes all proceedings under the said Sanhita for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. It is, therefore, contended that a Range Forest Officer is not a