High Court refused to quash proceedings for cow slaughter charges issued with malafide intent. However, directed bail consideration if applicants surrender within 30 days, citing relevant precedents on prima facie cases and bail jurisprudence.
Prayer to quash proceedings refused; bail considered if applicants surrender within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12261 of 2020
Applicant :- Belal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No.954 of 2020 (State v. Javed Ahmad & Ors.) in Case Crime No.0002 of 2020 under Sections 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Gambheerpur, Distt. Azamgarh pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and
decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally dhisisposed of .
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 28.8.2020 SP/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings under Sections 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether bail should be granted to the applicants upon surrender within 30 days.
Whether the case discloses a prima facie offence warranting continuation of proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
2004 (57) ALR 290, Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Belal And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
