On 19th October, 2020 (Monday), the Allahabad High Court concerning the fact of misusing the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, for implicating the innocent persons.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rahmuddin, who accused of cow slaughter and sale of beef under Section 3, 5, & 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Upon hearing, the Hon’ble Judge Siddharth has observed that,
“Act is being misused against innocent persons. Whenever any meat is recovered, it is normally shown as cow meat (beef) without getting it examined or analysed by the Forensic Laboratory. In most of the cases, meat is not sent for analysis. Accused persons continue in jail for an offence that may not have been committed at all and which is triable by Magistrate 1st Class, having maximum sentence up to 7 years.”
The court has concluded after it was informed that the applicant had been in jail for over a month even when allegedly, there is no allegation against him in the FIR. It was also allegedly noted that the applicant was not arrested from the spot.
The Court also observed that there is no proper recovery report is prepared and no one know where cows go after recovery. Old cows are not acceptable and are left to wander on the roads. Moreover, the owner of the cows after milking, leave the cows to roam on roads carelessly which cause traffic on the roads and it was also reported that the number of deaths caused due to road menace.
Further, it was added that,
“Earlier, farmers were afraid of ‘Neelgai’ (Vanroj an antelope) now they WWW.LIVELAW.IN have to save their crops from the stray cows. Whether cows are on roads or on fields their abandonment adversely affects the society in a big way. Some way out has to be found out to keep them either in the cow shelters or with the owners, if U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is to be implemented in letter and spirit.”
Therefore, considering the material on record, the Court allowed the Applicant/accused bail application on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the other bail conditions, as stated.
Subsequently, the court observed that in terms of the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Verdict in Dataram Singh vs. State of UP & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22, a case for bail is made out.
Case Details : Rahmu@Rahmuddin vs. State of UP (CR. Misc. Bail App. No. 34008/2020)