Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned counsel for the State and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. As per FIR, accused applicant was found driving vehicle in which 82 bullocks and 30 cows were loaded, out of which 6 bullocks and 4 cows were dead. There are no allegations of violation of any of the provisions contained in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Section 3 prohibits slaughtering of cow, bull or bullock and Section 5 prohibits sale of beef. Both these prohibitions do not find to have been voilated, as nothing is mentioned in the recovery memo. The learned Magistrate and Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not bother to go through the recovery memo which recites that none of the accused were found at the place of recovery nor any weapon of slaughtering has been recovered.
Now, allegations remains for the offence punishable under Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, which reads as follows:
"If any person.......(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or (e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or he shall be punishable (in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees but which may extend, to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend, to three months, or with both.
Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application without observing that the allegations do not relate to violation of any of the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, nor he has bothered to behave in a humane manner and has played recklessly with the rights guaranteed to a human being; what to think about Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by ignoring the repeated dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. What pains this Court is that the offence, if any, is bailable one. India has not yet been declared to be a police State. Rule of law is the way of life and the courts are bound to implement "Rule of Law".
Considering the facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, let the accused applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No.135/2012 under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, PS Hasanganj, District Unnao, on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court/Magistrate concerned.
It appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge has been swayed by sentimental arguments placed before him and he has forgotten his basic duty to administer law as it is. Either the learned Additional Sessions Judge has involved his own sentiments or has attempted to avoid his criticism for, in case the bail application is allowed, he would face criticism from any section of bar members. Criticism is part of our system and if the Judge succumbs to criticism, he should reconsider his virtues, his moral excellence, his efficacy, his inherent power and the practice of duty. The pious seat of justice has no religion. A Judge has to abide by his constitutional obligations and laws framed thereunder. A Judge should maintain his integrity and virginity under all circumstances.
"Recently in Gurdev Kaur & others V. Kaki & others, AIR 2006 SC 1975 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a note of caution to such orders which are stigmatic on the justice delivery system in the mind of the public at large and has held; "Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos ."
In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC (Cri) 149 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. There lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for."
It was further held:
"Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance."
People, by and large are rapidly loosing confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly the subordinate courts have opted tendency to play safe by overlooking the will of the people; underneath there is a feeling that the judicial officers manning the subordinate courts are fearful and not bold enough to deliver justice fearlessly which is soul of judicial system in India. This particular aspect is eroding the majesty of the courts which is suicidal for the national fabric. Passing orders in a mechanical manner like administrative officers is not expected from a Judge. A Judge has to keep his fingers on the pulse of the society.
In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India & ors. reported in 178 CAR 107 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Since a fair trial is not a limping hearing, we view with grave concern any judicial insouciance which lengthens litigation to limit of exasperation."
Judges right from the subordinate courts till to the highest strata cannot legislate when the legislature has provided punishment of fine under Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, how a Magistrate or Additional Sessions Judge is rejecting bail application is a matter of grave concern which casts aspersion against the control of this Court on the subordinate courts.
The Registrar General is directed to circulate copy of this order to all the Sessions Judge/C.J.Ms so that justice should be dispensed with strictly in accordance with law, in such a fashion that a message may be transmitted to the society at large that there is no deterioration in the judicial system.
Order Date :- 1.6.2012 Ram.