Allowed

Sajid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023ABAIL/9574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and related offences. The court noted no actual slaughter took place, the vehicle was not in the applicant's name, and the investigation was ongoing at the time of the order.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report; conditional release on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195688

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9574 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sajid Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sajid Ali seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 11-D Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and Section 183 of Motor Vehicles Act, P.S. Chhawni, District Basti.

¶8

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

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Neither the applicant is the owner of the vehicle No. UP22AT 9851 nor has any concern with the said vehicle. It is also submitted that the said vehicle is in the name of one Kadir which is explicit from the R.C. filed today by way of supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that no actual slaughtering has taken place in the matter. No beef has been recovered. Fourteen cow progenies including two dead have been recovered in the matter from the vehicle in which they are said to be transported. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the said vehicle has been sold by its owner to the applicant on the basis of notorial agreement but neither the said agreement is on record nor the same is part of the case diary.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

From the perusal of the record it reveals that no actual slaughtering has taken place in the matter nor any beef has been recovered. Fourteen cow progenies including two dead have been recovered from the vehicle in which they are said to be transported. Investigation is going on. As per R.C., the alleged vehicle is not in the name of the present applicant.

¶13

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.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.10.2023

¶23

safi

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ali 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.

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

Ansar Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. and Another