Merely Possessing, Transporting Cow Within State Wouldn't Amount To An Offence Under UP Cow Slaughter Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere possession of live cow/bullock or merely transporting cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955.The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to bail to one Kundan Yadav who was arrested in March this year...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that mere possession of live cow/bullock or merely transporting cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while granting bail to bail to one Kundan Yadav who was arrested in March this year in connection with the alleged recovery of 6 cows from a vehicle. He was booked under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of the U.P. Prevention Cow Slaughter Act, 1964 and Section 11 Prevention to Animal Cruelty Act, 1960.
The Court noted that no material had been placed by the AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicant had slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh.
"Mere 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 Court further observed.
The Court also noted that no material and circumstance had been shown that any physical injury was caused to any cow or its progeny so as to endanger the life thereof such as to mutilate its body or to transport it in any situation whereby endangering the life thereof or with the intention of endangering the life thereof does not provide with food or water, by the applicant.
In this regard, the Court said that there was no witness to substantiate that the applicant had caused any physical injury to any cow or its progeny so as to endanger the life and also, no report of the competent authority had been placed to show any physical injury was caused on the body of cow or bullock.
The Court added that the State has not argued that the accused had not cooperated in the investigation or that he may tamper with the evidence or witnesses if released on bail, or that he is not entitled to bail in the larger interests of the public or State.
In view of the above-mentioned, the Court made a prima facie observation that the applicant is not guilty and granted him bail.
In related news, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act by observing that the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef products.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan also said that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products as punishable under the Slaughter Act unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
Read more about the case here: UP Cow Slaughter Act| 'Mere Possession Of Meat Not An Offence, No Evidence That Substance Recovered Was Beef': Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Accused
Advocate Vishwa Nath Pandey appeared for the applicant-accused.
Case title - Kundan Yadav vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23297 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Click Here To Read/Download Order