The High Court allowed withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application filed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, without rendering a decision on merits, thereby maintaining the legal status quo. This order affirms existing procedure and does not disturb any established precedent; its value is procedural and not binding precedent on substantive law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ABA/1082/2025 of NITIN KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010150602025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | No binding precedent on substantive law; procedural only |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail and offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted for offences under Sections 2, 9, 12, 39, 40(2), 44, 49, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in respect of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. During hearing, counsel for the applicant requested withdrawal of the bail application, which was not opposed by the state. The Court accordingly dismissed the application as withdrawn, without entering into merits or substantive determination of the legal issue. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Application for anticipatory bail was filed in Complaint Case No.46 of 2025-26, FIR registered at Forest Range Roorkee, District Haridwar under several sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. At the hearing, applicant sought withdrawal, which was permitted by the Court unopposed by respondent. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any court for substantive questions of anticipatory bail under the Act; procedural precedent only for withdrawal of ABA applications. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive authority on grant or refusal of anticipatory bail under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court permitted withdrawal of an anticipatory bail application at the request of counsel, without opposition from the State.
- No substantive determination or precedent on grant/refusal of anticipatory bail under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 arises from this order.
- Lawyers should note this as a procedural order confirming that applicants may withdraw anticipatory bail applications without prejudice, if so desired.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The application for anticipatory bail was taken up for hearing.
- Applicant’s counsel, on instructions, requested to withdraw the application.
- The request was not opposed by the counsel for the respondent State.
- The Court dismissed the application as withdrawn, with no observation or finding on the merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Through counsel Mr. Rishab Ranghar, requested permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application.
Respondent
- Counsel for the State, Mr. G.S. Sandhu (AAG) and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj (Brief Holder), did not oppose the withdrawal request.
Factual Background
The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application before the High Court in relation to Complaint Case No.46 of 2025-26, registered at Forest Range Roorkee, District Haridwar, invoking several sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Upon hearing, counsel for the applicant sought to withdraw the application, which was not opposed by the State, and the Court dismissed the application as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Offences cited: Sections 2, 9, 12, 39, 40(2), 44, 49, 50, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
- No further statutory interpretation or analysis is provided in the order as the application was withdrawn without substantive hearing.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
Confirms the practice that anticipatory bail applications may be withdrawn at the instance of the applicant before arguments on merits, without opposition from the State.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedure on dismissal of withdrawn applications affirmed; no substantive law clarified or overruled.