Syed Khaja Ghouse Mohiuddin vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, noting his cooperation with the investigation and the fact that a previous application had allowed him to keep one Iguana. The Court reasoned that custodial interrogation was not necessary in this case. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. The Court granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and a solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the conditions enumerated in Sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973. The application was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Syed Khaja Ghouse Mohiuddin, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 237/2014 registered at the State Tiger Strike Force Police Station, Indore, for offenses under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Living Species (Reporting and Registration) Rules, 2024. The petitioner is alleged to have purchased exotic animals. He contended that he purchased animals from a co-accused after being assured of valid documentation, including a GST bill, and that he had cooperated with the authorities, approaching wildlife authorities and providing statements. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was not provided valid documents and purchased a significant number of animals requiring import permission. The Court noted a previous order allowing the petitioner to keep one Iguana and that the petitioner had provided documents and cooperated with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973) given his alleged involvement in the purchase of exotic animals under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and related rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he purchased animals after verifying documentation, including GST bills, and had cooperated with the investigation by approaching wildlife authorities and providing statements. He claimed no criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. He relied on his cooperation and the fact that a previous application allowed him to retain an animal. State's arguments: The State vehemently opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner was not provided valid documents by the co-accused and had purchased 59 animals, requiring import permission. They argued that no case for anticipatory bail was made out.