Bail on wildlife offence unavailable where undisputed records showed seized exotic animals fell outside the Wildlife Act.

Where the undisputed forest authority report showed that the rescued animals were exotic species outside the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, continued detention under that Act was not justified for bail purposes. The Court noted that the prosecution did not dispute that official record and that the matter appeared to raise a possible Customs law issue instead, although no investigation had been transferred to Customs. On that basis, the petitioners were entitled to bail in connection with the case under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when the seized exotic animals were stated to fall outside the purview of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The forwarding report of the Forest authority stated that the rescued animals were exotic species and that none of them came within the purview of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. That document was not disputed by the prosecution. On that basis, the Court found that the petitioners could not be said, at this stage, to have committed an offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 so as to justify continued detention under that Act. The Court also noted that the authorities themselves had referred to a possible Customs law issue, but no investigation had been handed over to the Customs Department.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to bail in connection with the case under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the only asserted basis for custody is an offence under a statute, and the undisputed official record shows that the seized articles do not fall within that statute's operative prohibition, continued detention under that statute is not justified for the purpose of bail.

---