Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11942

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 41 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by the State counsel is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 220 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act & Section 109/324 BNS, 2023, Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur.

¶9

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.1.2025, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-

¶10

“ At the very outset Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to typographical error in the memo of the bail application at page no.2 district Sultanpur has wrongly been transcribed as district Sultapur. She further submits that she has given a supplementary affidavit in this regard and, thus, she be permitted to correct the same during course of the day.

¶11

State has no objection to the request made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and looking into the facts given in the supplementary affidavit, counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the name of the district as mentioned in the memo of the bail application.

¶13

Heard Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶14

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 220 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act & Section 109/324 BNS, 2023, Police Station Karaundikalan, District Sultanpur.

¶15

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter planted by

¶16

the police. She further submits that applicant was not arrested on the spot and the police on the basis of suspicion has connected him. She added that the live cow progeny are allegedly recovered from a truck though the police has failed to connect the applicant with the offence. She also submits that applicant is having criminal history of one case and the same has been explained in the supplementary affidavit of date 22.01.2025 and there is no complaint against the applicant that he is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings. She next added that the police is adamant to arrest the applicant as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse.

¶17

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail. Till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. List/put up this matter in the 4th week of February, 2025.

¶21

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit.”

¶22

State counsel has failed to demonstrate from the counter affidavit that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶26

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶27

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶28

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶30

Order Date :- 27.2.2025

¶31

Shravan

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and

Case brief

What is this about?

Mohammad Shakeel @ Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alok Kumar @ Alok Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Jaya Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Sarvesh (in Adhar Card Sarvesh Kumar ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Govt. Lko.

Ayush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another