Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Singh Yadav @ Ajai Kumar ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104177
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4271 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Yadav @ Ajai Kumar Yadav @ Ajai Prakash Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Braj Lal,Prasenjeet
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Braj Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R. No.178 of 2023, registered under Sections 3/5-A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11(E) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act at Police Station- Kotwali, District Fatehpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the police is stated to have arrested the co-accused persons, namely, Chhotey Lal, Sunil Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Rohan Yadav, on 15.03.2023 by intercepting a DCM vehicle No. UP 83AT 3642, whereby about eight animals belonging to cow progeny were found mercilessly stashed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that no offence is made out against the applicant under Cow Slaughter Act. The offence, if any, is made out under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the arrested co-accused persons. The applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit except the four cases. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is a criminal history of four cases against the applicant and the said criminal history has not even been properly explained as no bail orders have been annexed.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in the present case also, no charge-sheet has been filed and in those cases also, there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant is wanted in those cases.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on paragraph 7 of the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.594 of 1962 (Bafati vs. State), wherein it has been opined that in criminal cases where two views are possible, a view favourable to the accused has to be adopted.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has criminal history of four cases and the judgment above has been passed in the case of criminal revision filed after conviction of the applicant and it does not apply to the present anticipatory bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
11. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Ravi Kant
