The Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, has granted bail to 21-year-old accused Nouman Mehboob Khan in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case registered under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The Court held that the prosecution’s case contained contradictory versions regarding the alleged seizure of protected wildlife species and noted the absence of specific allegations establishing the applicant’s possession of the seized animals.
The applicant was arrested on July 7, 2026, in connection with RC No. 068-2026/2026/E-0005 registered by the CBI’s Economic Offences Branch (EOB), Mumbai. He was booked under Sections 9, 40, 49 and 49B read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, along with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to criminal conspiracy.
According to the prosecution, the CBI acted on source information alleging illegal possession and transportation of Schedule-I protected wildlife species. During a raid, officials intercepted two vehicles—a Hyundai Verna and a Tata Altroz—near Huren’s Bakriwala & Confectionary at Fort, Mumbai.
The investigating agency claimed to have recovered several protected species, including Five Bengal Slow Lorises; Two Binturongs; Twenty-eight Indian Star Tortoises (20 small and 8 medium-sized); and Two Shikra birds.
The prosecution alleged that these species were protected under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and that the applicant, along with two co-accused, was involved in their illegal possession and transportation.
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, on behalf of the accused , argued that the applicant had already undergone custodial interrogation and that all alleged wildlife species had been seized and were in the custody of the investigating agency. Consequently, no further custodial detention was necessary.
It was further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai;he has no criminal antecedents; he undertook not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence; he would cooperate with the investigation whenever required; and the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, making bail the normal rule rather than the exception.
The CBI opposed the application, contending that the investigation was still at a crucial stage.
According to the prosecution, investigators were examining the larger wildlife trafficking conspiracy, identifying other members of the syndicate, tracing financial transactions, and determining the source and destination of the seized wildlife species.
The agency argued that releasing the applicant could adversely affect the ongoing investigation and create a risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering.
While examining the First Information Report and remand papers, the Court observed that there were no specific allegations demonstrating that the protected wildlife species were found in the exclusive possession of the applicant.
The Court further noted a significant inconsistency in the prosecution’s own version.
On one hand, the prosecution alleged that the accused were found transporting the protected species in two vehicles. On the other hand, it simultaneously stated that both vehicles were found parked at the location when the raid was conducted.
The Court observed that these contradictory stands weakened the prosecution’s allegations at the stage of deciding the bail application.
The Magistrate also examined the statutory provisions governing the alleged offences.
The Court observed that offences under Sections 9, 40, 49 and 49B punishable under Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act ordinarily provide imprisonment up to three years, while enhanced punishment extending up to seven years applies only in cases involving second or subsequent offences.
The applicant had no criminal antecedents.
Similarly, Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to criminal conspiracy carries comparatively lesser punishment in the circumstances applicable to the case.
Accordingly, the Court observed that the offences involved did not attract punishment exceeding seven years.
The Court noted that the applicant was only 21 years old, had no previous criminal record, and had already remained in police custody for a considerable period following his arrest on July 7, 2026.
It also recorded that the alleged wildlife species had already been seized by the investigating agency and that custodial interrogation had substantially been completed.
Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the statutory conditions governing grant of bail had been satisfied and that continued incarceration was not justified.
The defence relied upon several judicial precedents, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Faizan Khan v. Assistant Chief Conservator of Forests, Imran Latif Shirgawkar v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka.
While the Magistrate held that some of these precedents were factually distinguishable, the Court accepted the broader principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” It also observed that concerns regarding witness influence and evidence tampering could be adequately addressed by imposing suitable bail conditions.
Allowing the application, the Court directed the release of Nouman Mehboob Khan on bail subject to several conditions, including execution of a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two local sureties of the like amount; an option to furnish provisional cash bail of ₹2 lakh in lieu of sureties, with surety bonds to be filed within 30 days; prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses; restriction on leaving India without prior permission of the Court; furnishing residential address, mobile number and email details to the Investigating Officer; and mandatory cooperation with the investigation whenever required.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
