Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Yangchen Lachungpa v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-18528-2026), delivered a significant order refusing bail to a woman accused of being part of an international network engaged in poaching and trafficking of endangered wildlife species, including pangolins. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict approach towards offences involving wildlife crime, particularly those with cross-border implications.

The prosecution case traces back to information received by forest authorities, which led to an investigation by the Tiger Strike Force at Narmadapuram. The investigation revealed the alleged involvement of the applicant along with other individuals in organized poaching and trafficking activities. Based on these findings, a criminal case was registered on July 13, 2015.

The applicant’s subsequent conduct played a crucial role in shaping the legal proceedings. She was arrested in Sikkim on September 15, 2017, and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) at Gangtok. The CJM granted her interim bail for a limited period of fifteen days, directing her to surrender before the investigating authorities in Madhya Pradesh. However, the applicant failed to comply with this direction, prompting the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Gangtok Court.

Over the years, the applicant made multiple attempts to secure anticipatory bail, all of which were unsuccessful. Both the Sessions Court and a coordinate bench of the High Court rejected her pleas. Eventually, she was taken into custody on December 2, 2025. The present application sought regular bail, bringing the matter before Justice Ramkumar Choubey.

The case is not merely a routine bail matter but involves allegations of organized wildlife crime, which has emerged as a serious global concern. The illegal trafficking of species like pangolins, often driven by international demand, poses a grave threat to biodiversity and ecological balance. It is within this broader context that the High Court was called upon to assess the merits of the bail application.

Arguments of the Parties:

On behalf of the applicant, senior counsel advanced a series of arguments aimed at challenging the strength of the prosecution’s case. It was contended that there was no legally admissible evidence directly linking the applicant to the alleged offences. The defence sought to portray the case as speculative and lacking in concrete proof.

A key argument raised by the applicant pertained to the financial transactions relied upon by the prosecution. It was submitted that the alleged monetary transactions took place in 2012, which was significantly prior to the registration of the offence in 2015. On this basis, the defence argued that these transactions could not be connected to the alleged criminal activities and were being misinterpreted by the investigating authorities.

The applicant’s counsel also attempted to downplay the seriousness of the allegations by questioning the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence gathered during the investigation. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case strong enough to justify continued incarceration, especially when the trial was yet to commence.

In response, the State strongly opposed the grant of bail, emphasizing the gravity and international dimension of the alleged offences. The Government Advocate argued that the applicant was not merely a peripheral participant but an active member of an organized international gang involved in the poaching and trafficking of endangered wildlife species.

The State further highlighted that a Red Corner Notice had been issued against the applicant by Interpol, indicating the seriousness of the allegations and the international scope of the investigation. This, according to the prosecution, reinforced the apprehension that the applicant might evade the judicial process if released on bail.

Another critical aspect emphasized by the State was the applicant’s past conduct. The prosecution pointed out that despite being granted interim bail by the CJM Gangtok with a specific direction to surrender before the investigating authorities, the applicant had failed to comply. This non-compliance, coupled with the issuance of non-bailable warrants, was cited as evidence of her tendency to evade legal processes.

The State argued that in cases involving organized crime and cross-border networks, the likelihood of the accused absconding is significantly higher. Given the applicant’s previous conduct and the existence of international connections, the risk of her not being available for trial was described as real and substantial.

The prosecution thus urged the Court to adopt a cautious approach, taking into account not only the nature of the allegations but also the broader implications of granting bail in such cases.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Ramkumar Choubey, after considering the submissions of both parties and examining the material on record, declined to grant bail to the applicant. The Court’s reasoning reflects a careful balancing of individual liberty against the interests of justice and societal concerns.

At the outset, the Court took note of the nature and gravity of the allegations. It observed that the case involved an international gang engaged in the poaching and trafficking of wildlife, including pangolins, which are among the most trafficked mammals in the world. The Court recognized that such offences are not only serious in themselves but also have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity and environmental conservation.

The Court further noted that the material on record prima facie indicated the involvement of the applicant in the alleged criminal activities. While the defence had questioned the admissibility and relevance of certain evidence, the Court found that, at the stage of considering bail, it was sufficient to establish a reasonable connection between the applicant and the offence.

A significant factor that weighed with the Court was the applicant’s past conduct, particularly her failure to comply with the direction of the CJM Gangtok to surrender before the investigating authorities. The Court viewed this as a clear indication of her unwillingness to cooperate with the legal process. The issuance of non-bailable warrants further strengthened this inference.

The Court also gave considerable weight to the apprehension expressed by the State regarding the possibility of the applicant absconding. Given the international dimension of the case and the issuance of a Red Corner Notice by Interpol, the Court found this apprehension to be well-founded. It observed that ensuring the presence of the accused during trial is a crucial consideration in deciding bail applications.

In its order, the Court explicitly stated that the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the applicant evading trial militated against the grant of bail. It emphasized that in cases involving organized and transnational crime, the standard considerations for bail must be applied with greater caution.

The Court also implicitly recognized the broader public interest involved in curbing wildlife crime. By denying bail, it signaled the judiciary’s commitment to addressing such offences with seriousness and ensuring that those accused of participating in such activities are subjected to due process without undue leniency.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of its discretion in favour of the applicant. It held that the combination of prima facie evidence, the seriousness of the allegations, and the risk of absconding justified the continued detention of the applicant.

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.