Chanda @ Chandra Qureshi and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48771 of 2023 Applicant :- Chanda @ Chandra Qureshi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated. There is no independent witness of the recovery. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicants. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed.

¶4It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the police party has apprehended the applicants and on search 13 live bulls have been recovered. The bulls were being transported in the truck in which the applicants was travelling. The criminal history of the applicants have been explained in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicants are languishing in jail since 11.10.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶5Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. The applicants have been found to have committed an offence under the abovementioned act.

¶6Learned AGA for the State has not shown that the applicants have been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.

¶7No material has been shown by learned AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicants have slaughtered or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of section 2(d) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Mere possession of live cow/bullock by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under the Act No. 1 of 1956. The maximum sentence imposed by section 3 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.

¶8Mere transportation of the cow from one place to another within the Uttar Pradesh would not come within the ambit of Section 5 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1956. Mere transport of cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the said recovery. No fact, circumstance or material has been shown by learned AGA for the State to demonstrate that transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported of any cow, or bull or bullock, is from any place within the State to any place outside the State. The maximum sentence imposed by section 5A read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.

¶9In view of the abovementioned, prima facie, the applicants are not guilty under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.

¶10Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicants. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh,

(2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶11In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶12In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that they might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicants just on the ground that they had criminal antecedent.

¶13The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022

(10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

¶14No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18Let the applicants-Chanda @ Chandra Qureshi and Chhotey Qureshi involved in Case Crime No. 314 of 2023, under Sections 3, 5A, 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. v. The applicants 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. vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicants changes residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶19In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 VMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad