Partly allowed

Shamim Khan v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023ABAIL/11563/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to Shamim Khan in a case involving cow slaughter and animal cruelty allegations. The court held that a case for anticipatory bail is made out, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, investigation cooperation, and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge-sheet subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions including appearance before IO and non-interference.

Shamim Khan Vs State of U.P and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11563 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shamim Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Shamim Khan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.157 of 2022, under sections- 379, 411 I.P.C. and sections- 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and section- 11(d) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station- Bara, District- Prayagraj.

¶7

As per prosecution case, on the basis of confidential information received by the local police two pick-up vehicles were found standing at a secluded place in a jungle, where some of the persons were loading four cows and a calf for the purpose of carrying them for slaughtering; some of the persons involved in illegal transportation of the animals were arrested and who disclosed the name of certain others as having been involved in this offence.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he was not arrested on the spot and his name for the first time has come in the statement given by the co-accused before the police on which no reliance can be placed. The allegation contained in the F.I.R. that these cattles were brought by the present applicant for the purpose of slaughtering is absolutely false and that he has been enroped in the matter for ulterior motives.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and it is said that the case is still under investigation and that if the applicant is granted protection under section 438 Cr.P.C., the investigation may not reach its logical end.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Let the applicant, Shamim Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge-sheet

¶13

on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer and get his statement recorded within 15 days from today and shall also furnish an affidavit of compliance before the court concerned.

¶15

(ii) further , that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(iii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Saif

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamim Khan v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Khan 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

Goldi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munni Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sant Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahis Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another