LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-168

TAMEEM Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On March 16, 2018
Tameem Appellant
V/S
The State of Madhya Pradesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner Tameem Ansari in Forest Crime No.28060/2002 registered by P.S.-Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar under Sections 2 , 9 , 39 , 44 , 48-A , 49-B , 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) As per the prosecution case, co-accused Ajay Singh made a statement to the Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar in forest crime no.28060/02 under Section 50(8) of the Act that petitioner is involved in transportation and smuggling of red crowned roof turtles exclusively found in Chambal River and entered at Serial No.14B of Part-II of Schedule I of IUCN Red List. During investigation, it was learnt that the petitioner Tameem Ansari was confined in Central Jail, Chennai in connection with DRI PS crime no.14/2017 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1992. He was arrested on 11.10.2017 in the present case. Petitioner Tameem Ansari disclosed in his statements to the competent Forest Authority under Section 50 (8) of the Act that in the year, 2014, he came in contact with a person named Benty in Srilanka. He told him that there is a great demand for turtles in Hong Kong and Malayasia. He also shown photographs of turtles found in India on internet and Face-book and thereafter he contacted co-accused Ajay Singh, who delivered him such turtles. He purchased 450 turtles of three different varieties including expensive red crowned roof turtles for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. These turtles were transported in the Month of September, 2016 in his car no.TN 38 AC 300 from Agra to Chennai. These turtles were to be sent from Tuticorin to Srilanka; however, the DRI seized those turtles and he was arrested along with his agent. After being released on bail, he expanded his network and came in contact with co- accused persons Mannivannan and Sanil and traded in rare turtles. In August, 2017 Officers of DRI seized 2500 live turtles from the house of his agent Venkatesh and he was again arrested.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no admissible evidence available against him. The case of the prosecution is mainly based upon the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 50(8) of the Act. Unless, there is evidence that an offence has indeed been committed under the provisions of the Act, statement under Section 50 (8) of the Act would be to no avail. No turtle has been seized from the possession of the petitioner. There is no evidence that any turtle was taken out of Sagar. In this regard, he has invited attention of the Court to the judgment dated 23.10.2017 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.A.Nos. 743 and 764 of 2004, which relates to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is in pari materia with Section 50 (8) and (9) of the Wild Life (Protection Act ) 1972. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.