Fool Bano v. State of U.P

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11972 of 2023 Applicant :- Fool Bano Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.570 of 2023, under section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is a lady. The applicant has no concern with the house from where recovery of 80 kg beef has been recovered. Nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The recovery that has been shown is false and fabricated and there is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery. All the witnesses are police personal, whose statement is not reliable. He further submits that the applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 12 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, she will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection by submitting that 80 kg beef has been recovered from the house of the applicant. As per FSL report dated 09.09.2023, the recovered meet belongs to beef. Allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶5In 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, 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 applicant.

¶6Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Ajeet High Court of Judicature at Allahabad