The Allahabad High Court pulled up the Sitapur police and sought a response from the district SP inside two weeks on a case registered underneath the UP Cow Slaughter Act in February, because it discovered that the provisions of the Act had been invoked erroneously. Applicant”.
A division bench of Justice Abdul Moin was listening to the bail plea of Suraj (22), who was booked on February 25 underneath sections 3 and eight of the Act together with three others Ibrahim, Anish and Shahzad.
The FIR was registered on the premise of a police criticism alleging {that a} police staff had overheard a dialog between the accused about killing three calves. The FIR states that on the premise of data acquired from an informer, the police staff “carefully apprehended the above persons and heard them talking among themselves in the bushes that they had killed three calves and received a large sum of money”. of cash and that now he had two bullocks and had deliberate to kill them too”.
As per the courtroom order, the FIR lodged by senior sub-inspector Deepak Kumar Pandey states that 4 individuals, together with the applicant, had been arrested and “two bullocks, a bundle of rope, a hammer, a ghadasa (small), a pitcher ( large), one nail and 12 empty packets of 5 kg every had been recovered from the possession of the accused.
Arguing that the applicant has been in jail since February 25 “on the basis of such frivolous allegations”, Suraj’s counsel Dilip Kumar Yadav argued that “mere recovery of two bullocks and other equipment from the possession of the applicant would not constitute a case”. To give impact to the provisions of the Act.
However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that after the tools and two bullocks had been recovered, it was held that the accused had been within the technique of killing the bullocks. The AGA stated that based mostly on the conversations heard by the staff, a transparent case of cow slaughter has been made out towards the applicant and therefore there was “no illegality and infirmity” within the FIR and the applicant “is, thus, legally imprisoned.” locked in”.
The courtroom stated that after perusing the FIR, “it clearly emerges that the bullocks found in the possession of the applicant were neither killed nor crippled or had any bodily injury”.
The courtroom stated that “it was only on the basis of alleged conversations that the police had heard” {that a} case was instituted. It stated that “in the present case, the recovery of only two bulls from the possession of the equipment other than the applicant and others would prima facie indicate that no case is made out under sections 3 and 8 of the Act”.
The courtroom additionally noticed that the applicant was in jail for greater than two and a half months by advantage of the sections framed towards him, which “would not prima facie attract in the said incident”.
The courtroom granted bail to the applicant on furnishing a private bond and two sureties every.
It stated that it “dissociated from the case” after granting bail nevertheless it additionally finds the statements made within the bail software “to direct the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur to file his personal affidavit in the interest of justice”. . It exhibits how cognizance of Sections 3 and eight of the Act, 1955 has been taken towards the applicant.
The courtroom gave Sitapur SP two weeks to file an affidavit and listed the matter for listening to on June 16.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
