Mannivannan Devar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Since both of aforesaid two miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are

being disposed of by this common order.

These are first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Mannivannan Devar and

Mohammad Irfan in Forest Crime No. 28060/02Â registered by P.S.-Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar, under Sections 2(16)(20), 2, 9, 39, 44, 49-

A(b),48-A, 51, 52, 55 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. (hereinafter referred to in this order as 'the Act').

As per the prosecution case, co-accused Ajay Singh made a statement to Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar in forest crime no.28060/02 under

Section 50(8) of the Act that he is involved in transportation and smuggling of red crowned roof turtles, exclusively found in Chambal River and

entered at Serial No.14-B of Part-II of Schedule I of IUCN Red List. During investigation, it was learnt that co-accused Ajay Singh, who is also

engaged in smuggling of red crowned roof turtles, had business dealings with present petitioner Mannivannan. Accordingly, petitioner Mannivannan

was arrested on 20/01/2018 at the instance of petitioner Mohammad Irfan. Mannivannan admitted under Section 50(8) of the Act that he is engaged in

International smuggling of red crowned roof turtles and other species of rare turtles which are on brink of extinction. Mannivannan was an

important clog in the International network of smugglers dealing in endangered turtles. The tentacles of that network were spread in India,

Bangladesh, Singapur, Malaysia, Thailand, China, Medagascar, Seychelles etc. Petitioner Mohammad Irfan was agent of petitioner Mannivannan in

aforesaid illegal trade of turtles and used to procure red crowned roof turtles for being sold in the International market from Chambal region. Petitioner

Mannivannan was arrested on 27.08.2012 at Suvernabhumi Airport in Thailand with 890 turtles, which were smuggled from India. He was released on

bail by a Court of Thailand; however, he never appeared before that Court to face the trial. As per Intelligence Report of Bangladesh Police,

petitioner Mannivannan indulged in smuggling of turtles from India to Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. One of the consignments sent by

Mannivannan in March, 2014 with carrier/passanger Rajnikant Ojha to Thailand. Rajnikan was caught at Bangkok Airport.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner Mannivannan submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.01.2018. Charge sheet in the matter has

been filed. There is no direct evidence to implicate the present petitioner in the case apart from the statement purportedly made by him under section

50 (8) of the Act. The prosecution is trying to show linkage of Mannivannan to other co-accused persons through the bank accounts of one Tabassum

Khatoon, who said to be financee of Mohammad Irfan. However, aforesaid Tabassum Khatoon has not been made an accused in the present case.

Inviting attention of the Court to judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Aziz Vs. Central Narcotics Bureau

(order dated 23.10.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.743/2004), it has been submitted that unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that an

offence under the Wild Life Protection Act has been committed, the statement made by an accused under Section 50(8) of the Act would be to no

avail. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been freely going to Thailand and returning on numerous occasions. Had he been wanted by

a Court in Thailand, he would not have been able to travel so freely. In support of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed

copy of his passport. Therefore, placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another (Judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.227/2018), it has been prayed that petitioner Mannivannan be

released on bail.

Likewise, learned counsel for petitioner Mohammad Irfan submits that no turtle has been seized from the possession of petitioner Mohammad Irfan.

He is not related to Tabassum Khatoon; therefore, he cannot be implicated on the basis of bank transactions made by aforesaid Tabassum

Khatoon. He has been in custody since 25.01.2018. The offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class; therefore, it has been prayed that

petitioner Mohammad Irfan be released on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the applications for bail made on behalf of

petitioners Mannivannan and Mohammad Irfan. It has been submitted that both the petitioners are international smugglers of highly endangered red

crowned roof turtles and other endangered species of turtles. Petitioner Mannivannan has wide ranging contacts with other international smugglers.

He was in contact with coaccused Ajay Singh for supply of turtles through his agent petitioner Mohammad Irfan. The call details of petitioners reveal

that they were in contact with other players in the racket. An I phone was seized from the possession of petitioner Mohammad Irfan which contained

a sim, which was in the name of his financee Tabassum Khatoon. Mohammad Irfan and Tabassum Khatoon also had a joint bank account which

clearly reveals that their nexus. Transactions in all worth Rs.16,60,000/- were made between Mannivannan and Mohammad Irfan. Like

transactions in the sum of Rs. 6,18,000/- were made between Mohammad Irfan and coaccused Ajay Singh. The petitioners were also in contact with

each other and other co-accused persons through email and on mobile phone. The prosecution has collected record of aforesaid conversation.

Keeping in view the track record of petitioner Mannivannan, he is likely to abscond in the case of his release on bail. Therefore, it has been prayed

that the bail applications of both of aforesaid petitioners namely Mannivannan and Mohammad Irfan be dismissed.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly those pointed out by learned Government Advocate for the

respondent/State and the material collected so far by the prosecution against the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to

release petitioners Mannivannan Devar and Mohammad Irfan on bail at this stage.

Consequently, their first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are dismissed.