Court acknowledges regulatory lapses over deliberate illegal trade, orders release on personal bond.
In a significant decision, the Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to Nitin Kumar, who was embroiled in legal proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Kumar faced allegations of illegal possession of venomous snakes and trading snake venom without a valid license. The High Court, led by Justice Ashish Naithani, passed the judgment on April 24, 2026, emphasizing the distinction between regulatory lapses and deliberate illegal actions.
Kumar, an applicant from Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, had previously held a valid license for the scientific collection of snake venom, which is crucial in the preparation of life-saving medicines. Although his license expired on December 31, 2023, Kumar had applied for its renewal on October 28, 2024, well before the raid on October 22, 2025. Despite these efforts, bureaucratic delays prolonged the renewal process, which became a focal point in his legal defense.
The court found that Kumar's continued incarceration was unjustified, attributing the situation to regulatory oversight rather than intentional illegal trade. The judgment underscored that Kumar had operated under a valid license earlier and had made timely efforts to renew it. Furthermore, his engagement in the business of scientific collection of snake venom for a considerable period without any prior complaints bolstered his case.
The State's counsel opposed the bail application, arguing that Kumar engaged in illegal trade by extracting and selling snake venom outside the state. However, the court, after reviewing submissions and records, concluded that the allegations necessitated a trial to determine if they stemmed from regulatory lapses or deliberate intentions.
Justice Naithani's order stipulated Kumar's release on bail with conditions, including a personal bond and two reliable sureties. The decision marks a critical moment in balancing enforcement of wildlife protection laws with the rights of individuals navigating regulatory frameworks.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted to Applicant under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, considering that the Applicant earlier operated under a valid license, applied for renewal before the raid, and incarceration was not justified due to regulatory lapses rather than deliberate illegal trade.
Statutory provision(s): Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 Sections 2, 9, 12, 39, 40(2), 44, 49, 50, 51.
Nitin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttrakhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2888713
