Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56909 of 2019 Applicant :- Danish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Danish, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 434 of 2019, under Sections 3/5Ka/8 U.P. Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 and Under Section 41/102 Cr.P.C. & Section 411 IPC, Police Station- Milak, District- Rampur, during pendency of trial.
The allegation against the applicant is that one calf has been recovered from joint possession of three persons including the applicant.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant with ulterior motive. No offence under Sections U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 has been committed by him warranting punishment under the aforesaid Act. He has further submitted that from the allegations made against the applicant no cognizable offence as per Section 9 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 is made out against him. The offence is triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence of 7 years. In fact, Act is being misused against innocent persons. Their submission is that whenever any meat is recovered, it is normally shown as cow meat (beef) without getting it examined or analyzed by the Forensic Laboratory. In most of the cases, meat is not sent for analysis. Accused persons continue in jail for an offence that may not have been committed at all and which is triable by Magistrate Ist Class, having maximum sentence upto 7 years. It is further submitted that whenever cows are shown to be recovered, no proper recovery memo is prepared and one does not know where cows go after recovery. It is further argued that Goshalas do not accept the non-milching cows or old cows and they are left to wander on the roads. Similarly, owner of the cows after milking, leave the cows to roam on roads, to drink drainage/sewer water and eat garbage, polythene, etc. Moreover, cows and cattle on the road are menace to the traffic and number of deaths have been reported due to them. In the rural areas cattle owners who are unable to feed their live stock, abandon them. They cannot be transported outside the State for fear of locals and police. There are no pastures now. Thus, these animals wander here and there destroying the crops. Earlier, farmers were afraid of 'Neelgai' (Vanroj an antelope) now they have to save their crops from the stray cows. Whether cows are on roads or on fields their abandonment adversely affects the society in a big way. Some way out has to be found out to keep them either in the cow shelters or with the owners, if U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is to be implemented in letter and spirit. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2019. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. He has strongly opposed the bail and contended that cow slaughtering leads to acrimony between various groups of society. It has also resulted into riot like situations which poses serious problem for law and order before the State. He has finally submitted that due to above reasons, State had to apply U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 against some of such accuseds. He has pointed out that for the above reasons the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, U.P. Goshala Adhiniyam, 1964 and U.P. Go-Sewa Ayog Adhiniyam, 1999 have been enacted by the State Government.
Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant Danish involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 SK Srivastava