The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday granted bail to a Muzaffarnagar resident, Nitin Kumar, who had been in judicial custody since October 2025 for the alleged illegal possession of 89 venomous snakes and the collection of their venom.
Justice Ashish Naithani, presiding over the case, observed that the matter appeared to stem from a procedural delay in the license renewal process rather than a clear-cut case of illegal trafficking, noting that a valid license had previously existed for the activity.
The case against Nitin Kumar was registered under various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act. State authorities had seized dozens of venomous snakes and quantities of venom from his possession, leading to his arrest and subsequent detention in judicial custody.
The prosecution’s core allegation was that Kumar was involved in the illegal trade of snake venom. However, the defense presented a narrative centered on regulatory compliance and administrative delays.
During the hearing, the defense counsel argued that Kumar’s activities were originally sanctioned by the state. They pointed out that Kumar held a valid license to use snake venom for the manufacturing of life-saving medicines, which was effective until December 31, 2023.
The defense further contended that:
- An application for the renewal of the license had been submitted and was pending at the time of the arrest.
- Kumar had proactively sought permission from wildlife officials to release the snakes back into the wild, but no decision had been made on that request by the relevant authorities.
The State counsel strongly opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the license had already expired. The prosecution also highlighted that several snakes had died while in Kumar’s possession and alleged that he was using the cover of a medicinal license to engage in the illegal trade of venom.
Upon reviewing the facts, the court found that the “quantity of snakes recovered does not establish illegal possession when a valid license previously existed.”
Justice Naithani observed that the crux of the dispute appeared to be a “delay and lapse in the license renewal process” rather than an outright criminal enterprise. Regarding the more serious allegations of illegal trade, the court noted:
“Whether the activity constituted illegal trade remains a matter for the trial to determine.”
Finding that the accused had already spent significant time in custody and that the legal dispute centered on administrative status, the court determined that Kumar was entitled to bail.
