Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9997 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohammad Arif And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants after rejecting their anticipatory bail application by the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.03, Varanasi, seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2018, under Sections 279, 307 IPC and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the investigation.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the owners of the two truck nos. UP70 CT7644 and UP-73 A-6721 and have no concerned with the transportation of 21 buffaloes in one truck and 23 buffaloes on the another truck. It is only the drivers who were transporting the animals and were liable and applicants have no concerned. It is further contended that both the trucks have been released and thus the applicants be released on anticipatory bail. Lastly, it is submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned A.G.A., who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is submitted that applicants being the owner of the trucks had full knowledge of the animals being transported through their truck. Commitment of such an act would not be possible without their connivance by the truck drivers who were transporting 44 animals in the two trucks.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case as well as gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicants.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 31.5.2021 Kushal