Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ganim vs State Of U.P. on 6 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:176759 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10099 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohammad Ganim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Mohammad Ganim seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.381 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that a Truck No.RJ11GA8452 loaded with the remains of cow progeny was held by some public persons and brought to the police station along with two accused persons namely, Pappu Khan and Ishaq and F.I.R. was lodged on 9.12.2022 and investigation started, however, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against co-accused persons Pappu Khan and Ishaq whereas investigation in respect of the present applicant is still going on.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He has no concern with the alleged offence. His name has been brought to the surface on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons Pappu Khan and Ishaq. It is further submitted that the applicant is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Bulwark Fertilizers having its headquarter at Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. It has a trade license of supplying the dead animals bone sinews to the firms / companies situated all over India and his firm also possesses its own GST registration number etc. and is a valid transporter. In the alleged incident, the bone sinews of dead animals was being transported with legal papers. It is further submitted that there is no forensic report on record to show that the bone sinews belong to cow progeny. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is cooperating with the investigation and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been vehemently submitted that during investigation, evidence has been collected to the effect that the goods being transported in the matter in hand were shown as buffalo bones whereas they were remains of cow progeny. The sample was sent for chemical examination and it was found on the basis of chemical analysis of the sample that it belongs to cow or its progeny. It is further submitted that being the proprietor of the transport company, the present applicant cannot escape from his liability and he had played an active role in commission of the crime. It is further submitted that a huge quantity of remains / bone sinews belonging to cow progeny has been recovered from the truck which was the property of the transport company, of which the applicant claims himself to be the proprietor. Offence is serious in nature. On the above grounds, a prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application has been made.
6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
7. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 6.9.2023 / ss