Rahisuddin vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121156

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10877 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahisuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this application, applicant-Rahisuddin, who is involved in Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Lisadi Gate, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that on recovery of 250 Kgs of cow meat and certain items which are used in slaughtering cow, police got a First Information Report lodged on 30.11.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act against four accused persons, namely Aas Mohammad, Rahisuddin (applicant), Anas and Mazahar making allegations inter alia that on the information given by the informer about slaughtering of cow in a house, the police personnel rushed to the said place, peep in through the wall and saw that a slaughtered cow was lying. Four persons were engaged in cutting the meat of the cow into small pieces with knife and axe and filling it in a black polythene bag. On knocking the door by the sub-inspector, a person opened the door, then police personnel entered into the house and caught three

¶9

2

¶10

persons. Taking advantage of small wall, one person managed to escape. He was chased by the police personnel, but in vain. The apprehended persons disclosed their identity as Aas Mohammad, Rahisuddin (applicant) and Anas. They disclosed the name of their accomplice, who fled away as Mazahar. From the possession of Aas Mohammad, a bloodstained knife, from Rahisuddin (applicant), a bloodstained iron Daw and Summa and from Anas, a bloodstained knife were recovered. On interrogation, they disclosed that they bring the cows to this house and slaughter them to earn good price, they pack the cow meat in black polythene bags and sell it door to door. Shredded bovine meat was found at the spot. A chopped cow’s head, some remains and polythene bags as well as other items were lying at the spot. Thereafter, Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, Meerut was called at the spot, who made physical verification. Sampling was also done and on weighing the recovered cow meat, it was found 250 Kg. After completing all the required legal formalities, recovered articles were sealed and meat was buried in the ground by sprinkling salt on it. In the recovery memo it is also mentioned that if recovered bovine meat is not destroyed, there is a possibility of spreading disease among the people nearby due to rotting of the meat. During recovery and arrest, an attempt was made to call witnesses from the public, but no person from the public was ready to testify.

¶11

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Till date, F.S.L. report has not been received, hence it cannot be said that the alleged recovered meat was cow meat. It is also pointed out that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the fact that no F.S.L. report has been received, has granted bail to the co-accused Aas

¶12

3

¶13

Mohammad vide order dated 19.05.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10453 of 2025, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that F.S.L. report dated 16.12.2024 has already been received, in which it is found that the sample belongs to cow or its progeny. The F.S.L. report dated 16.12.2024 is extracted herein below:-

¶15

4

¶16

It is also pointed out that co-accused Aas Mohammad has obtained bail on 19.05.2025 by playing fraud upon the Court suppressing the above F.S.L. report dated 16.12.2024. Lastly it is submitted that considering the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that applicant was apprehended at the spot. The knife and other articles which were used for slaughtering were also recovered from the possession of accused persons. The F.S.L. report dated 16.12.2024 has confirmed that the recovered meat is cow meat. I also find that co-accused Aas Mohammad has been granted bail on 19.05.2025, whereas the F.S.L. report has already been received on 16.12.2024, which has not been brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench while granting bail to co-accused Aas Mohammad. Hence, I do not find any good ground to extend the benefit of bail order dated 19.05.2025 of co-accused-Aas Mohammad to the applicant.

¶18

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected .

¶20

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Kashifa

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahisuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahisuddin 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Fakir Lal Shah vs State of U.P.

Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Ramkrit Ram vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh Verma @ Kuldeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satya Deo Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kant Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another