Uttarakhand High Court
State vs Unknown on 5 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No.481 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Akshay Joshi and Mr. Vishwast Kandpal,
Advocates for the revisionist.
2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal revision is directed against judgment and
order dated 26.02.2021, passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Complaint Case No. 357 of 2013,
State Vs. Bhupendra Singh and others, whereby the
revisionist was convicted under Section 51 r/w 39 of The
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentenced three years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000/-; as well as
judgment and order dated 21.07.2025, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Appeal
No.04 of 2021, Surendra Singh Bhandari Vs. State through
Forest Department, Pithoragarh, whereby the appeal
preferred by the revisionist has been dismissed and the
judgment and order convicting and sentencing the
revisionist was upheld.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist
that there is grave illegality and irregularity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by trial court as well as
appellate court, inasmuch as, the Lab Analyst Report
submitted by Wildlife Institute of India is bad and cannot
sustain for the reason that the recognition of the Wildlife
Institute of India by the Central Government was granted
vide notification dated 20.07.2017 under Section 293 of the
Cr.P.C.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist
that the report was submitted by Wildlife Institute of India
in the year 2014 before its recognition; therefore there is
vital illegality in the report and that cannot be made basis
for convicting the revisionist for the offence under Section
51 r/w 39 of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel admitted the factual
position so far as notification is concerned and submits that
he needs instructions in the matter.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the view that there is substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and
the matter requires deliberation.
8. Admit.
9. Sent for T.C.R.
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
10. Today learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant
would press for the bail application
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant that the revisionist/applicant is under
incarceration since the date of judgment i.e., 21.07.2025.
He further submits that he has been on bail during trial as
well as during pendency of the appeal and he never misused
the same.
12. He further submits that the revisionist/applicant has
been convicted for a period of three years with a fine of
₹10,000/- and is entitled to be released on bail.
13. On merits he submits the same submission which he
advanced in criminal revision.
14. Per contra, State counsel supported the judgments and
order passed by both courts below - trial court as well as
appellate court. He further submits that recovery of the skin
(hide) of the leopard has been made from the
revisionist/applicant.
15. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties,
and particularly the fact that the alleged recovery of leopard
skin (hide) from the revisionist/applicant is doubtful in view
of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
revisionist/applicant that the Lab Analyst Report was
submitted by the Wildlife Institute of India which was not
recognized in the year 2014 -- the revisionist/applicant
deserves to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Surendra +Singh Bhanadari be
released on bail, during pendency of the present criminal
revision, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
18. Realization of fine, as imposed by the trial court, shall
remain stayed, during pendency of the present criminal
revision. The sentence shall also remain suspended.
19. List this case on 12.11.2025.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.08.2025
SK
