Anticipatory bail granted where seized articles were secured and accused undertook to cooperate with investigation.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2 in FOC No. 1/2026-27, sought anticipatory bail in a case arising from a raid at a farmhouse in Kebbepura village.

The raid allegedly resulted in the recovery of deer antlers, wildlife skins, teeth, feathers, weapons, ammunition and cameras.

The case was registered under Sections 2(31), 9, 27, 31, 34, 39, 40, 42, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners’ application for bail before the Sessions Court had been rejected.

They had also earlier sought to quash the FIR; in that proceeding, the State was directed to issue notice requiring their cooperation with the investigation and the officer was directed to follow the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

The petitioners submitted that no notice had been issued, undertook to cooperate, and stated that the articles had already been seized.

Accused No. 3, who had been arrested, had been released on regular bail.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in FOC No. 1/2026-27, having regard to the alleged offences and the circumstances of the investigation.

2. Whether anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions requiring the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation.

The petitions were considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the provision invoked for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences arose under the specified provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted the earlier direction that the investigating officer follow the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation when dealing with the petitioners.

It also observed that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was imprisonment for up to seven years.

The Court considered that the petitioners had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation, that the articles found at the farmhouse had already been seized, and that the maximum punishment was seven years’ imprisonment.

It also took account of the earlier direction for notice and compliance with the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, and the release of accused No. 3 on regular bail.

In these circumstances, it held that anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the petitioners’ appearance and cooperation.

Each petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order and execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum; they must attend the Trial Court unless exempted, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, cooperate with the investigation and not involve themselves in similar offences.