Allowed

Yasmeen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023ABAIL/13275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application by a female applicant facing charges under cow slaughter and animal cruelty laws. Considering her role and the case circumstances, bail was granted subject to conditions and a personal bond with sureties until the chargesheet submission.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet, subject to personal bond with two sureties and specified conditions.

Yasmeen Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13275 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yasmeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Shamim Khan,Deepak Singh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd Tahir holding brief for Sri Mohd Shamim Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 0264 of 2022, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.

¶7

As per prosecution case, on the basis of a confidential information that the present applicant along with her family members was engaged in cow slaughtering, her house was raided and 50 kgs of beef, cutting instruments etc were recovered from her house; the same was examined in the laboratory and it was confirmed that it was beef; two persons were arrested on the spot and she managed to escape.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that she is a woman and she was not arrested at the spot and that therefore, it cannot be said that she was complicit in illegal slaughter; two of the accused persons namely Rashid and Wasif, who were arrested on the spot, have been granted regular bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 49695 of 2022 and 49779 of 2022 respectively vide order dated 9.11.2022.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned AGA for the State.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant, Yasmeen involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made herein 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yasmeen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasmeen v. State of U.P.

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

Tuntun Kumar Byahut Vs State of U.P.

Mr. Suresh Khatua Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sandhya Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pavan Kumar Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another