Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused /applicant for offences under Section 3 read with Section 5 and Section 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J allowed the anticipatory bail plea of the accused.

The accused submitted that the First Information Report (‘FIR’) of the instant case has been lodged by the Village Chaukidar against four accused persons including the applicant/accused alleging therein that on in the evening he got information that prohibited animal has been slaughtered in the sugarcane field and when he arrived at the spot, he found a cord and semi digested cow dung of the calf. Further, some villagers have seen the accused persons carrying a calf towards the sugarcane field.

It is further submitted that no prohibited animal or any meat of progeny of cow has been recovered and the Investigating Officer has only collected the cow dung found on the spot and has sent the same for Forensic investigation

The Court said that it is evident that in the instant case that neither any prohibited animal nor his flesh has been recovered and simply based on apprehension and suspicion the FIR appears to have been lodged and the charge sheet has also been filed. Further, the Investigating Officer has collected remains of cow dung from the spot and has sent the same to Forensic Lab for analysis which has been returned by the Forensic Lab by stating that Forensic Lab is not meant to analysis the cow dung. The Court also noted that the accused does not have any criminal history.

The Court also said that the instant case is an glaring example of misuse of penal law as neither the prohibited animal nor its flesh has been recovered from the possession of any accused person or from the spot and only a rope and some amount of cow dung has been collected by the Investigating Officer and there are statement of some witnesses who have claimed to have seen the accused persons going towards the sugarcane field along with a calf . Further, it said that it was the duty of the State to ensure fair investigation, which has not been done in the present case.

Thus, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea of the accused.

[Jugadi Alias Nijamuddin v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 121, decided on 28-03-2023]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Narendra Gupta;

Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.