Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a bail application filed by an alleged pangolin poacher, the Single Judge Bench of Ramkumar Choubey, J., dismissed the application, holding that the record suggested the accused’s prima facie involvement in the crime. Additionally, the apprehension that she might not be available for trial appeared well-founded.
Background
Upon receipt of information and consequent investigation, the forest officials found the accused herein and her co-accused involved in poaching and trafficking of pangolin and other wild animals. Accordingly, a case was registered against them under Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 57, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and she was arrested.
When the accused was produced before the trial court for transit remand, she was granted interim bail for 15 days and directed to surrender before the enquiry/investigation officer of the Tiger Strike Force Office, Narmadapuram, within 15 days. However, she did not comply with the interim bail order, and accordingly, a non-bailable warrant was issued. Aggrieved, the accused sought anticipatory bail from the Court of Session, which was dismissed, and her anticipatory bail application filed before the coordinate Bench of this Court was also dismissed. Finally, she was arrested on 2 December 2025.
Hence, the present application.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that the matter indeed involved an international gang of poachers and traffickers of wildlife animals like pangolin. The record suggested prima facie involvement of the accused in the crime. Moreso, the apprehension of the State that she might not remain available for trial appeared to be well-founded. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence, the Court dismissed the bail application.
[Yangchen Lachungpa v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 18528 of 2026, decided on 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Anil Khare and Priyankush Jain
For the respondent: Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar