Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Md Mumtaj Queresi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2015

Author: H. C. Mishra

Bench: H.C. Mishra

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                A.B.A. No.3865 of 2014

            Md. Mumtaj Queresi                                .....   Petitioner
                                         Versus
            The State of Jharkhand                            ....      Opposite Party

            CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

            For the Petitioner           :       Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha
            For the State                :       A. P.P.
                                         -----

   4/23.2.2015

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with P.C.A. Case No.286 of 2014, for the alleged offences under Sections 3/11 (I) a, c, d, e, f, h, l, k, 29(A)(b)29(1)(2)(3)(5),38(3) of P.C.A. Act and Rules 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 96, 97 and Section 3 /4 and 4(A), 4(b)(2) of Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act and Sections 3 /4, 4(a), 4(d), 5, 13/12 (1)(2)(3), 13 and 15 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, and Rules 5,6,7 of Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Rules.

It appears that Bovine animals were being transported without permit, which were apprehended.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is bona fide purchaser of those animals. Learned counsel accordingly, prayed for anticipatory bail.

The impugned order shows that the animals were subjected to cruelty and they were so thickly loaded on truck that they were unable to properly stand or breath freely and they were also chained and the petitioner had no required certificate or permit for transportation of animals.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar