New Delhi [India], September 15 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge by Wildlife SOS co-founder and CEO Kartick Satyanarayan against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to withdraw interim protection from arrest granted to him in an alleged leopard poaching case.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave mentioned the matter before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, seeking protection for Satyanarayan as he joins the investigation. 
Dave submitted that Wildlife SOS was an NGO whose anti-poaching efforts had helped lead to the recovery of the leopard skins, but that its Chief had subsequently been implicated by the State.
He said Satyanarayan was willing to cooperate with the authorities and appear before the investigating agency, but required protection from arrest.
“We led to the recovery of the skins. The recovery (of the skin) was in Uttar Pradesh, and the matter was thereafter taken up in Madhya Pradesh. We are willing to cooperate and appear before the authorities, but we need protection,” the advocate submitted.
The bench agreed to list the plea this week, saying, “It will be listed.”
The dispute arises from a Madhya Pradesh State Tiger Strike Force (STSF) investigation into alleged leopard poaching after leopard skins were recovered in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench had recently dismissed two petitions filed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 
It also recalled Satyanarayan's interim protection from arrest, citing alleged non-cooperation, and directed him to appear before the STSF on September 21.
The State had alleged that Satyanarayan failed to cooperate with the investigation, suppressed a third summons and an arrest warrant issued against him, and did not join the probe into the alleged poaching of 10 leopards in Sheopur and Morena districts.
The State has described Satyanarayan as “absconding”, a characterisation disputed by Wildlife SOS. The organisation has maintained that seeking legal protection does not amount to refusing to cooperate with the investigation.