The Allahabad High Court in the case Ibran @ Sheru vs. State of U.P. observed and has recently granted bail to an accused who is being booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act wherein it observed that the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef products.
The bench headed by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan in the case observed and has stated that merely the possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products unless it is being shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
The court in the case observed and has granted bail to one Ibran @ Sheru who is being arrested in the month of March in 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.
In the present case, the accused had moved the court wherein seeking ail 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 being no other evidence wherein it linked the applicant with the alleged recovery. Thus, it was also argued before the court that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case.
Observations made by High Court:
The court in the case observed and has 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 caused to be sold or transported beef or beef products.
Further, the court in the case noted that there is no independent witness of recovery and the procedure prescribed as it has been stated 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 in the case further stated that the AGA for the State had not shown any fact or circumstance which would amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence as stated under section 5 of the UP Cow Slaughter Act.
Therefore, the court in the case noted that it has not been argued by the State in the case 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 in the case he is not being entitled in the larger interests of the public or State.
Accordingly, the court granted him bail on furnishing the personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The counsel, Advocate Ajay Kumar Srivastava appeared for the accused applicant.
