Regular bail granted in wildlife poaching case considering charge-sheet filing and duration of judicial custody.

The applicant, a 59-year-old man, was arrested on December 16, 2025, following the discovery of a mutilated and decomposed leopard (Panthera pardus) carcass on December 14, 2025, in Protected Forest Compartment No. 292, Sahaspur Lohara.

The carcass was missing internal organs, canine teeth, and claws, leading the Forest Department to suspect illegal poaching.

The prosecution alleged the applicant used GI wires to electrocute the animal, supported by dog squad tracking.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that the evidence was presumptive, lacked forensic confirmation of electrocution, and that he had been in custody for over three months while the trial was expected to be prolonged.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the evidence and the duration of his pretrial detention.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

Sections 9, 2, 50, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, regarding the illegal hunting of protected species.

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Procedural consequences for bail default under Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court evaluated the application by balancing the gravity of the allegations—the illegal killing of a leopard—against the applicant's circumstances and the progress of the legal proceedings.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, which signifies the completion of the primary investigation.

Although the prosecution pointed to one criminal antecedent, the Court found that the applicant’s detention since December 16, 2025, and the fact that the trial would take considerable time to conclude, outweighed the objections to bail.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the forensic evidence (or lack thereof) but focused on the period of detention and the unlikelihood of an immediate trial conclusion as the primary grounds for relief.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s strict adherence to trial proceedings, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness testimony and mandatory appearance during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Any violation of these conditions allows the trial court to initiate proceedings for the abuse of liberty under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.