Tameem vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

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 Actâ€​).

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.

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.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner is an

international smuggler of highly endangered red crowned roof turtles and other endangered species of turtles. He has wide ranging contacts with other

international smugglers. He was in contact with co-accused Ajay Singh, who supplied turtles to him. The call details record of petitioner Tameem

Ansari reveal that he was in contact with other players in the racket namely Mannivannan, Sanil and Mohammad Irfan. Amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- and

Rs.1,50,000/- were transferred from Account Nos.916010014119058 and 915010041603384 belonging to Tameeem Ansari to the Account

No.50200009154498 of co-accused Ajay Singh. In this regard, bank statements have been produced. From the call details record, it is clear that from

12.09.2016 to 17.09.2016, petitioner Tameem was in contact with co-accused Ajay Singh and was in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. On

17.09.2016, his Mercedes Car No. TN AC 300 travelled between Agra and Jhansi towards M.P.. The toll plaza report in this regard has been seized.

It has also been submitted that the statement under Section 50 (8) of the Act, in itself, is sufficient for conviction under the provisions of the Act. In

this case, corroborating evidence is also available against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been in custody exclusively in this case since

20.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.

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

the respondent State, it will not be appropriate to release the petitioner Tameem Ansari on bail at this stage.

Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitionerTameem Ansari is dismissed.