Dismissed¶17

Hazi Arif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2026BAIL/42715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail rejection; applicant Hazi Arif; Case Crime No. 20 of 2014; Sections 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act; P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar; habitual offender; criminal history of 56 cases (16 cow slaughter/animal cruelty, 7 gangster act, several Gunda Act); recovery of 14 slaughtered cows; co-accused Yameen granted bail in Bail No. 42628 of 2025 (05.02.2026) as senior citizen; Justice Ashutosh Srivastava; decided February 9, 2026.

What did the court decide?

In view of the applicant's criminal history of 56 other cases showing continuous indulgence in cow slaughter and other crimes, there is no reasonable ground for the Court to believe that the applicant is not guilty of such offences and is not likely to commit any offence in future while on bail. ¶16

Hazi Arif Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Hazi Arif deserves to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2014 under Sections 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of counsel, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for bail; the bail application is rejected.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — habitual offender. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) rejected the bail application of Hazi Arif in Case Crime No. 20 of 2014 under Sections 3/5/8, Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar. FIR was lodged on 07.02.2014 by Sub Inspector Ganesh Singh Chauhan against three named persons including the applicant, alleging recovery of 14 slaughtered and one live progenies, two knives and two blood-stained axes from the house said to be the place of incident (ownership disputed by the applicant); charge sheet was filed on 25.05.2014, cognizance taken on 17.07.2014, summons went unserved, a bailable warrant issued on 15.03.2018, and the trial Court rejected the applicant's bail on 25.04.2025. Co-accused Yameen had been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42628 of 2025 (order dated 05.02.2026), which the State attributed to his being a senior citizen. Holding that the applicant's criminal history of 56 cases — per the State including 16 under the Cow Slaughter and Animal Cruelty Act, 7 under the Gangster Act and several under the Gunda Act — showed continuous indulgence in crime, and that there was no reasonable ground to believe he was not guilty or unlikely to offend while on bail, the Court found it not a fit case for bail and rejected the application (February 9, 2026).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42715 of 2025

¶2

Hazi Arif

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ankit Agarval, Dilip Kumar Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application at the instance of the applicant, Hazi Arif, has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2014, under Section 3/5/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

¶9

It has been argued that the accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report was lodged on 07.02.2014 by the Sub Inspector Ganesh Singh Chauhan, against three named persons including the applicant with the allegation that on an information of informer, regarding cow slaughtering in the house of the applicant, the police team raided the house in question and recovered 14 slaughtered and one live progenies, two knives, two blood stained axe but all the accused persons fled away from the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, the house shown as a place of incident, is not belonging to the applicant. He further submits that in the present case charge sheet has been filed on 25.05.2014, cognizance of the same has been taken by the Court concerned on 17.07.2014. It has been further argued that summon against the applicant was issued on 17.07.2014 but the same was not served upon the applicant and thereafter on 15.03.2018 bailable warrant was issued against the applicant but up to 17.04.2025 the applicant was not aware about the aforesaid proceedings. On 25.04.2025 the bail application, moved by the applicant before the trial Court, was rejected by the trial Court and the applicant was sent to jail. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused Yameen has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.

¶10

BAIL No. 42715 of 2025

¶11

¶12

42628 of 2025, vide order dated 05.02.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that criminal history of 56 cases have been properly explained in the supplementary affidavit and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant with the contention that 14 slaughtered cow have been recovered from the place of incident. The said place of incident is belonging to the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has criminal history of 56 cases, out of which 16 cases are only of Cow Slaughter and Animal Cruelty Act, 7 cases of gangster act, several cases are of Gunda Act and other Acts, explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of bail application, from which it is clear that the applicant is a habitual offender and involved in criminal activities since long. He further submits that co-accused Yameen has been granted bail by this Court because of being senior citizen. He further submits that in case of grant of bail to the applicant there would be great danger of law and order in the society hence his bail is liable to be rejected.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

From the aforesaid arguments, it reflects, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 56 other cases which clearly shown that he is continuously indulged in the crime of cow slaughtering and other crimes. Thus, there is no reasonable ground for this Court to believe that the applicant is not a guilty of such offences and applicant is not likely to commit any offence in future while on bail.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected .

¶17

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶18

February 9, 2026

¶19

Deepak/

¶20

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hazi Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazi Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhudayal Vs State of U.P.

Udayveer Vs State of U.P.

Farhat Rafiq vs State of U.P.

Tasawwar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Zeenat Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.