On the State’s own photographs, the King Cobra “was found in the forest in an open space and it was not kept in captivity”, the Karnataka High Court has said while quashing the Wildlife case against snake rescuer Dr. P. Gowri Shankar.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 against Thirthahalli-based snake rescuer Dr. P. Gowri Shankar, who was accused of capturing a King Cobra, photographing it in captivity and allowing others to photograph it [Dr. P. Gowri Shankar v. State of Karnataka].
By an oral order dated November 2, 2026, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the criminal petition and quashed C.C. No. 414 of 2026, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli.
Three things the State did not allege
Reading the complaint, the Court noted that the allegation was that the petitioner had, in the past, captured a King Cobra and photographed it and let others do so. It then set out what the complaint did not allege:
“It is not the allegation of the respondent-State that the petitioner has kept the king cobra in captivity. It is not the allegation that the king cobra is killed or injured by the petitioner. It is not the allegation that the photograph is uploaded by the petitioner.”
Open forest, not captivity
Turning to the photographs filed with the charge sheet, the Court held:
“The Court is of the view that the respondent-State is not in a position to substantiate that the king cobra was actually captured by the petitioner. What is seen from the photographs produced along with the charge sheet is that the king cobra was found in the forest in an open space and it was not kept in captivity.”
The Court also recorded that the photographs were found published on social media and were not recovered from the petitioner, and that the charge sheet itself showed he had, “on umpteen occasions”, reported the King Cobras he rescued to the jurisdictional forest officers. “That being the position, the Court cannot take a view that the petitioner has committed any of the offences as alleged in the complaint,” it held.
A forest officer’s complaint and a quashing petition
The complaint was lodged on September 26, 2025 by the Range Forest Officer, Agumbe Range, Megaravalli, in Shivamogga district. It alleged that the petitioner had captured a King Cobra, taken its photograph while it was in captivity and allowed others to photograph it, which the forest department said amounted to offences under Sections 2(1)(16), 9, 50, 51, 55 and 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Cognizance was taken on July 1, 2026, and the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the proceedings.
The rival submissions
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Akshay Swamy argued that the charge sheet did not show the King Cobra had been hunted and that, even on the State’s own photographs, the snake was in an open forest and not in captivity. He submitted that the petitioner was often called to rescue King Cobras and other snakes from homes, that each rescue was reported to the jurisdictional forest officer with acknowledgments issued, and that the complaint rested on a video uploaded on social media by a third person. He added that the investigation recovered only a snake rescue bag and a rescue hook, and no King Cobra.
Additional State Public Prosecutor M.V. Anoop Kumar countered that the charge sheet showed the petitioner had allowed others to photograph the King Cobra and had caused the photographs and videos to be uploaded on social media, which amounted to an offence.
The outcome
The petition was allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 414 of 2026, registered by the Range Forest Officer, Agumbe Range, were quashed.
Why the order matters
Snake rescuers routinely handle protected species to move them out of homes and back into the wild, and the Wildlife (Protection) Act treats capture and captivity of Schedule species seriously. The order draws a practical line: a prosecution must show, from the charge sheet itself, that the accused actually captured, held, killed or injured the animal, and social media images uploaded by others, showing the snake in open forest, are not enough.
The Court also gave weight to the rescuer’s record of reporting each rescue to forest officials. That points to the approach forest departments can expect when they act on viral videos: the material must establish an offence by the person charged, not merely his presence in footage published by someone else.
Case Title: Dr. P. Gowri Shankar v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Petition No. 13723 of 2026; 2026:KHC:60948]
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Akshay Swamy
For State: Additional SPP M.V. Anoop Kumar