Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The applicant – Kaam Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 671 of 2025, under Sections 9, 39, 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, registered at Police Station-Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by one S.I., Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, in which, it was mentioned that on information of the informant, the Police party conduced raid in some houses and thereafter found meat and turtle from the possession of the applicant and the applicant was arrested and FIR was lodged under Section 39, 51 and 9 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. After completing investigation, the whole papers relating to the investigation were handed over to the forest officials.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. For ready reference, Section 55 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:-

55. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than-

(a)the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

(aa)Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or

(ab)Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

(ac)Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

(ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

(b)the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or

(bb)the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38-J; or

(c)any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.”

6. On this basis, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that investigation conducted pursuant to such FIR is illegal investigation as the Police personnel are not competent to conduct investigation as such court cannot take cognizance of any offence under Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and on this basis, the applicant cannot be incarcerated. It is also submitted that applicant is languishing in judicial custody since 25.06.2025. Thus, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that investigation conducted pursuant to such FIR is illegal investigation and the applicant is languishing in judicial custody since 25.06.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned.