Kallu vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57741

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1018 of 2025

Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This second application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 187 of 2021, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11(1)(D) of Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. Aata, District Jalaun.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas, there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this court till the submission of police report vide order dated 15.07.2022 and thereafter charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance/summoning order has been passed against the applicant. As per prosecution version, police have intercepted a truck container bearing No. PB13 BK4147, in which 24 cow species animals were being transported and co-accused Munna and Ibrahim were arrested at spot. The involvement of applicant has been shown merely on the basis that he is the registered owner of the said truck/container. In the alleged incident neither any

¶9

slaughtering has been shown nor any beef has been recovered. It was submitted that applicant has never misused the anticipatory bail granted to him earlier. Now charge-sheet has been submitted. It was submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kallu involved in the aforesaid case, 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 the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness.

¶17

iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶18

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

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

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 'SP'/-

¶22

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

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Alias Arun Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Pal Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Rathore and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashraf Alias Asraf vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitesh Bhatnagar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Gudiya Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others