Wildlife SOS chief stripped of protection in leopard poaching case

The order came on an application by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (MPFD) seeking recall of the interim relief.

When contacted, a Wildlife SOS spokesperson said the NGO “strongly disapproves” of using the term “absconding” to describe Satyanarayan: “The decision to seek appropriate legal protection before appearing should not be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate. Wildlife SOS remains committed to cooperating with the investigation through due process.”

In a press release Wednesday, the MPFD said 15 people from Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi had so far been arrested in the case and described Satyanarayan as an “absconding accused”. It said an arrest warrant was issued against him on August 31 after he failed to join the investigation despite three summonses.

When contacted, a Wildlife SOS spokesperson said the NGO “strongly disapproves” of using the term “absconding” to describe Satyanarayan. “The decision to seek appropriate legal protection before appearing should not be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate. Wildlife SOS remains committed to cooperating with the investigation through due process.”

The case stems from the July 23 arrest of four alleged poachers on the Gwalior-Agra highway with 10 leopard skins. Wildlife SOS had then said the seizure followed months of surveillance by its Forest Watch anti-poaching unit. After the skins were traced to Madhya Pradesh, the STSF began investigating the hunting, procurement and movement of the wildlife articles.

As reported by The Indian Express, the probe into the killing of 10 leopards in Sheopur and Morena districts led to the arrests of Bhagwan Singh, described by officials as a wildlife trader associated with Wildlife SOS, and Wasim Akram, a director with the organisation. Investigators alleged that the two named Satyanarayan during questioning.

Satyanarayan moved the High Court seeking the quashing of summonses dated August 14 and August 19, as well as Preliminary Offence Report No. 237/2025. His lawyers said Wildlife SOS personnel had assisted Uttar Pradesh officials by providing the information that led to the seizure. They also argued that Madhya Pradesh could not open a second investigation into the same incident.

On September 2, the court restrained the STSF from taking coercive action against Satyanarayan and allowed him to attend questioning with a lawyer observing from a distance, subject to his cooperation.

Seeking recall of that order, the state told the court that Satyanarayan had not disclosed a third and final summons issued on August 24 or the arrest warrant subsequently issued by a competent court on August 31. It also said he had failed to appear despite the interim protection.

On this, a Wildlife SOS spokesperson said: “All relevant medical records were submitted to the authorities when requested. The hospital’s confirmation of his mother’s discharge date does not establish that Kartick was not attending to her thereafter, nor does it contradict the explanation provided in his submissions.”

According to the state, Satyanarayan had sought time to appear, saying he was caring for his ailing mother in Hyderabad. Investigators, however, claimed the hospital informed them that she had been discharged on August 6 and that Satyanarayan had not attended to her there.

On this, a Wildlife SOS spokesperson said, “All relevant medical records were submitted to the authorities when requested. The hospital’s confirmation of his mother’s discharge date does not establish that Kartick was not attending to her thereafter, nor does it contradict the explanation provided in his submissions.”

The state also rejected his contention that the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh proceedings concerned the same offence. It said the Agra case dealt with the possession and transportation of the skins, while the STSF was investigating the earlier hunting of the animals and those who allegedly facilitated or abetted it.

Accepting the state’s application, the court cited the gravity of the alleged wildlife offences, the undisclosed third summons and Satyanarayan’s alleged non-cooperation. The petition will be listed for admission after four weeks.

Wildlife SOS had earlier said it remained committed to supporting all lawful investigations and that neither the alleged digital evidence nor its contents had been shared with the organisation. It maintained that its personnel had helped expose the poaching operation and were being falsely portrayed as its perpetrators.