Dismissed

Shamshul Hak Rain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023ABAIL/11222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the applicant, allegedly the owner of a vehicle from which six cow progenies were recovered, sought bail in a U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter case. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary and refused the application.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was rejected.

Shamshul Hak Rain Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203623

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11222 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shamshul Hak Rain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.32 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention to Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Pawara, District Jaunpur, the applicant - Shamshul Hak Rain has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. Applicant has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that no actual slaughtering has taken place in the matter. It is further submitted that a recovery of 6 cow progenies including one dead cow progeny has been shown from the Bolero Pickup Vehicle No. UP67-AT-0815 wherein they are said to be transported. No beef has been recovered from the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He is not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, his name has been added by the police. At the time of alleged incident, he was not present at the spot. Applicant has been shown to be involved in the said alleged incident on account of the fact that he is the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently submitted that six bovine animals including one dead animal have been recovered from the Bolero Pickup vehicle wherein they were being transported in a cruel manner. The offence is serious in nature, therefore a prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application has been made.

¶10

Prima facie it appears from the perusal of the record that a recovery of total six cow progenies including a dead one has been made from the vehicle in question wherein they are said to be transported in bad condition. It further appears that the applicant is said to be the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Investigation into the matter is going on and custodial interrogation of the applicant in this matter prima facie appears to be necessary.

¶11

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶12

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 ss

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamshul Hak Rain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshul Hak Rain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajid Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another