Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Parvez vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186144
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10466 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Parvez
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrita Kashyap,Yadvendra Yadav
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 Amrita Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, 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 Case Crime No.07 of 2023, registered under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 11(1)(D) Animal Cruelty Act at Police Station- Taraya Sujan, District Kushinagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, one container no. HR 55T 8325 was apprehended by the police and the driver alongwith his helper are stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence on 14.01.2023. On further looking into the said truck, 22 animals belonging to cow progeny were found mercilessly stashed in it.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case owing to the ownership of the said container. 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 applicant does not carry any vicarious liability for the offence committed by the said driver. 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. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Mohd. Parvez be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
