UP Cow Slaughter Act| 'Mere Possession Of Meat Not An Offence, No Evidence That Substance Recovered Was Beef': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Accused

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to an accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act by observing that the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef products. The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also said that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products as punishable under the Slaughter Act unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef. With this, the Court granted bail to one Ibran @ Sheru who was arrested in March this year in connection with the alleged recovery of 30.5 KG of meat and was booked under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. “No material has been shown by learned AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicant has slaughtered or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of section 2(d) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 3 of Act No. 1 of 1956. No report of the competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” the Court observed. Essentially, the accused had moved the Court seeking bail in the case wherein his counsel argued that he is a painter and was doing his job of painting in the house when the raid was conducted and that there is no other evidence linking the applicant with the alleged recovery. It was also argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case. High Court’s observations At the outset, the Court noted that no material circumstance had been shown to suggest that the accused-applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef products. Further noting that there is no independent witness of recovery, the Court said that the procedure prescribed under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been followed in the case and that the alleged recovery of the substance had been made by police personnel. The Court also said that AGA for the State had not shown any fact or circumstance which would amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 5 of the UP Cow Slaughter Act. “Even otherwise mere carrying of meat by any person, by itself cannot amount to sale or transport of beef or beef products unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef. In the present case the prosecution has not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered is beef or beef products,” the Court noted as it formed a prima facie view that the applicant was not guilty under the UP-Cow Slaughter Act. The Court also noted that the State has not argued that the accused had not cooperated in the investigation or that he may tamper with the evidence or witnesses if released on bail, or that he is not entitled to bail in the larger interests of the public or State. In view of this, the Court granted him bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the accused applicant. Case title - Ibran @ Sheru vs. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 172 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18519 of 2023] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 172 ClickHere To Read/Download Order

UP Cow Slaughter Act| 'Mere Possession Of Meat Not An Offence, No Evidence That Substance Recovered Was Beef': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Accused

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags