Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

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

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that 10 Kg meat is alleged to have been recovered from accused persons including applicant. There is no independent witness of the recovery. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicant. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. There is no report that the meat recovered is beef.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has been found to have committed an offence under the abovementioned act.

6. Learned AGA for the State has not shown that the applicant has been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.

7. 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 the Act No. 1 of 1956. No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef. The maximum sentence imposed by section 3 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.

8. No material circumstance has been shown to suggest that the applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport or cause to be sold or transported beef or beef products. No report of competent authority or authorised laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the substance recovered is beef or beef product. There is no independent witness of recovery. The procedure prescribed under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The alleged recovery of substance has been made by police personnel. A case of false implication has been raised on behalf of the Applicant. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any fact or circumstance which will amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under section 5 of the Act No. 1 of 1956. 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 maximum sentence imposed by section 5 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.