Allowed

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023BAIL/26738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the High Court allowed bail to the applicants, drivers apprehended while transporting meat. The Court held that as drivers they could not distinguish meat types, no slaughter was alleged against them, and no exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail were shown by the State.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, flee, or quit India.

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192741

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26738 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Agarawal,Kushagra Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinod Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have been falsely implicated. As per allegations in the first information report, the applicants are driver and were carrying the truck on e-Way bill, which is at page-83 of the paper-book, where, the consigner has declared consignment to be meat of Bovine Animal Fresh & Chilled. Applicants were apprehended by the informant and a sealed container containing meat was found, which was sent to the laboratory, where it was declared cow meat.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicants are only carrier and e-Way bill discloses that the consigner had declared the consignment to be meat, therefore, applicants are not liable as the driver cannot distinguish between meat of other animals and cow meat. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicants. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The applicants have no criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 17.04.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case that the applicants are drivers and e-Way bill itself contained the description of the meat as Bovine Animal Fresh & Chilled, which the driver could not

¶11

distinguish. It is submitted that U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has been found to have committed an offence under the abovementioned act.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State has not shown that the applicant has been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.

¶13

In view of the abovementioned, prima facie, the applicant is not guilty under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.

¶14

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶15

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶16

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶17

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶19

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶20

In the present case, it is to be seen that applicants are only

¶21

carrier and e-Way bill discloses that the consigner had declared the consignment to be meat, therefore, applicants are not liable as the driver cannot distinguish between meat of other animals and cow meat. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicants. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The applicants have no criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 17.04.2023.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicants-Vinay Kumar Tiwari & Satendra Singh involved in Case Crime No. 0130 of 2023, under Sections 3, 5, 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Yamuna Pal, District Mathura, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶27

iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶28

v. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶30

vii. In the event, the applicants change residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential

¶31

address in writing.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶33

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 S.Prakash

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohammad Suhel @ Lukki Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Kanjad Vs State of U.P.

Vaseer @ Wazir Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Krishnapal Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Vs State of U.P.