Allahabad High Court
Saif Ali Alias Rahmat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95320
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11893 of 2025
Applicant :- Saif Ali Alias Rahmat Ali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding initiated by Charge Sheet No.123 of 2024 dated 28.11.2024 in Case No. 253 of 2024 (now change to Case No. 1131 of 2024) (State Vs Kasim and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0116 of 2024, Under Section-3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 the prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Mirzapur, as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that an FIR was lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicant and 27 others under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, read with Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act with an allegation that on 29.09.2024, when a routine inspection/ raid was conducted, then the applicant along with other co-accused were committing the act of cow slaughtering. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the samples were taken for examination in the Forensic Laboratory Mathura and by virtue of the report dated 10.10.2024, it was opined as under: -
"on the basis of chemical analysis one unsealed sample belong to cow or its progeny while remaining two sealed and three unsealed samples do not belong to cow or its progeny".
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first of all there is a cloud and other possibility of manipulation being done, particularly when the report itself is not clear and explicit. Further while inviting attention towards page-55 of the paper-book, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is proprietor of Wid Field Enterprises and a registration certificate under Form GST REG-06 has been appended. He submits that applicant was in his proprietorship firm in connection with his work, however, recovery has been shown and the applicant has been further shown to have committed the said offence. He further submits that applicant is innocent and there were no independent witnesses so as to corroborate.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once an FIR had been lodged wherein applicant has been named and a charge sheet has been submitted, then it is matter of trial and this Court may not interfere at this stage.
6. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar and after perusing the record, the sole question which would arise for determination is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage in the present proceedings.
7. Apparently, the FIR stood lodged against the applicant and 27 others in the above noted Sections, pursuant whereto, the investigation stood triggered on and the charge sheet was submitted. The question as to whether the applicant was actually involved in criminality or not is a matter of trial. As a matter of fact the applicant claims that he is a proprietor of the said proprietorship firm and he was present in connection with his work, but his name has been implicated and roped in is a matter of defence, consideration whereof has not arisen at this stage. As regards the interpretation so sought to be propounded by learned counsel for the applicant upon the analysis report is concerned, this Court at this stage is not required to delve into the said issue, as it would be amounting to adjudicating or adjudging the merits of the matter, which even otherwise is a subject matter of trial. Even otherwise, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1918, this Court is not required to enter into the arena of factual scenario.
8. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference.
9. In so far as the reliance and the reference so placed upon the judgment in Jail Appeal no. 4200 of 2017, Smt. Kusum Devi vs. State of U.P. is concerned, the law as culled out in the aforesaid judgment, there is no quarrel, however the said judgment would not be in aid or assistance at this stage, when in the present case, charge sheet has been challenged, particularly in that case emanated from conviction.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant shall move discharge application before the court below and till the discharge application is decide, protection be accorded to the applicant.
11. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the same.
12. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar, the application is rejected while directing the applicant to file the discharge application by 20.06.2025 and the court below is directed to decide the same with most expedition, preferably within 45 days.
13. Till 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant with respect to the Charge Sheet No.123 of 2024 dated 28.11.2024 in Case No. 253 of 2024 (now change to Case No. 1131 of 2024) (State Vs Kasim and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0116 of 2024, Under Section-3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 the prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Mirzapur, as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur.
14. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.
Order Date :- 5.6.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
