Allowed

Murtaza v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2025BAIL/2198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:83795 | Allahabad High Court, Court No. 88, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra J. | CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2198 of 2025 | Applicant Murtaza v. State of U.P. | Offence: Sections 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955; Case Crime No. 801 of 2024, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly | Bail sought under Section 483 BNSS during trial | Recovery of cow remains in two p

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; applicant Murtaza to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 801 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

Murtaza vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83795

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2198 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Murtaza Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Murtaza, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 801 of 2024, under Section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, P.S.- Bhojipura, DistrictBareilly, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

The allegation made in the FIR is that the S.I. Sri Sandesh Singh along with other constable while in search of the criminals in the area then believing the information of informer, they reached at the bridge of Devrania river and arrested the applicant and other coaccused persons and recovered some cow remains.

¶9

The allegations made in the FIR is that S.I. Sri Sandesh Singh alongwith some constables while in search of the criminals received information on 08.11.2024 at 16:50 hours that seven persons who had slaughtered progeny of cow are coming with remains of progeny of cow by a horse cart, they are coming to throw cow remains in Devrania river. Three persons namely Murtaza, Babu alias Abid, Naseem were arrested by the police on the spot and four persons were successful to make good their escape, whose name surfaced in the statement of three arrested accused applicant including the present applicant Murtaza. From search of the arrested accused persons remains of progeny of cow were recovered in two plastic sacks.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. He is held in jail custody since 08.11.2024, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. The co-accused Naseem, who has already been released on

¶11

bail by orders of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2014 of 2025. Another co-accused Rashid, who is said to have absconded from the spot and also been released on bail vide order dated25.04.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2098 of 2025.

¶12

He further submitted that on the date of alleged incident the applicant were going to market and the police had taken into custody just to inquire him regarding slaughtering of animals remains of progeny of cow, as the applicant is by caste Kuraishi (Kasaee) and when he did not satisfy the police personnel they implicated in present case by planting criminal case against the applicant. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of remains of progeny of cow. The sample is pending before the laboratory and report is yet to come. The applicant has criminal history of one case,which is prescribed in affidavit and copy of the bail order has been filed as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and he has only one criminal, in which he has been bailed out.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence and complicity of accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that accused/applicant has only one previous criminal history and he has explained the same. The accused applicant is in jail custody since 08.11.2024, and the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Murtaza , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Ashish/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Murtaza v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murtaza v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivashish Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Satyendra Kumar Shukla vs Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, District Lucknow and 2 Others

Saif Siddiqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Shrawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sheela Verma @ Shila Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another