Dismissed¶14

Mohammad Asif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023ABAIL/974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act Sections 3/5A/8; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 Section 11; cow slaughter; recovery of 20 bovine animals including 8 dead cows and 1 dead ox; Deoria; custodial interrogation; Sushila Aggarwal (2020) 5 SCC 1; bail application rejected.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie, a recovery of total 20 bovine animals including 8 dead cows and 1 dead ox was made from the vehicle in question; the animals appear to have been slaughtered; investigation is going on and custodial interrogation of the applicant prima facie appears to be necessary. ¶10

Mohammad Asif Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 974 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Asif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Mohammad Asif seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.142 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station, Laar, District Deoria.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has been falsely roped in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle wherein the bovine animals are said to be transported. Name of the present applicant has come into light on the basis of the statement of co-accused, who were arrested on spot. It has been submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

Prima facie it appears from the perusal of the record that a recovery of total 20 bovine animals including 8 dead cows and 1 dead ox has been made from the vehicle in question wherein they are said to be transported. It further appears that they have been slaughtered. 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

¶12

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.

¶13

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 till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 ss

¶16

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

Mohammad Asif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Asif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dau Dayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another