Disposed¶10

Banarasi Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2025NABAIL/830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail refusal BNSS 482; Banarasi Yadav; cow slaughter Chandauli Naugarh; 126 cows recovery; Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 3/5A/5B/8/11; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Arnesh Kumar arrest checklist; MD. Asfak Alam 2023; notice Section 41/41-A CrPC; no automatic arrest; investigation ongoing.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; however, liberty protected conditional on notice under Sections 41/41-A Cr.P.C. per Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam guidelines, with arrest permissible only upon credible material recorded by the I.O.; application disposed of. ¶10

Banarasi Yadav vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19672

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 830 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Banarasi Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & 11 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & 11 Prevention of Cruelty against Animal Act, Police StationNaugarh, District Chandauli.

¶9

Allegation alleged in the FIR is that 126 live animals (cows) have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant having no concern with the alleged recovery. He has been implicated in the present case being involvement in previous case crimes, which have been explained Para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. Investigation is going on.

¶10

Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant is, hereby, refused.

¶11

However, in view of judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein law has been laid down for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶12

"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure

¶13

what we have observed above, we give the following direction: All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;

¶14

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

¶15

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

¶16

The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

¶17

The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶18

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶19

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶20

Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

¶21

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years;

¶22

whether with or without fine."

¶23

In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023 , the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

¶24

Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the applicant is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the applicant in this case, applicant is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.

¶25

It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the applicant, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the applicant, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra).

¶26

With the aforesaid observations, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off .

¶27

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 SKD

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Banarasi Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banarasi Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Shivam Pandey vs State of U.P.

Rohit vs State of U.P.

Goverdhan Nishad vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Garg Alias Rajeev Kumar Garg vs State of U.P.

Vishram Maurya and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Singh vs State of U.P. and Another