In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a judgment was passed on the case of illegal cow slaughtering. The case involved the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in connection with alleged offenses under the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017. The court carefully weighed the factors of the case, considering evidence of slaughtered cow meat found at the scene. This judgment highlights the court’s discretion in granting anticipatory bail and the importance of investigating such serious allegations. #LegalCase #GujaratHighCourt #CowSlaughter #AnticipatoryBail
Facts
- The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR registered for offences under the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017.
- The FIR alleges that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in slaughtering a cow and that cow beef was found in gunny bags and a polythene bag at the scene.
- The complainant, an Asst. Head Constable, received information about the alleged slaughter through a phone call and subsequently a raid was conducted where evidence of the slaughter was found.
- The prosecution has accused the petitioner of violating sections 6(A)(B) and 8(2)(4) of The Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017.
- Evidence presented includes the recovery of cow beef, gunny bags, a polythene bag, and two big knives at the scene.
- The court is considering the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and evidence presented in the FIR.
Arguments
- The petitioners argue that the place where the cow meat was found does not belong to them as per their Aadhar Card address
- There is no connection between the petitioners and the alleged cow meat found
- The petitioners deny any involvement in the slaughtering of the cow
- Petitioners were found at the spot where a slaughtered cow was discovered with 190 kg of cow meat.
- The petitioners are accused of being involved in illegal cow slaughtering without a license.
- The police received a tip-off naming the petitioners specifically for cow slaughtering at a certain location.
- The petitioners fled the scene upon police arrival, indicating involvement in the illegal activity.
- The argument that the petitioners do not reside at the location where the evidence was found does not absolve them of being present at the scene.
- Evidence from the FIR indicates a slaughtered cow with removed skin and bloodstains.
- Anticipatory bail should be granted cautiously as it is an extraordinary relief.
Analysis
- Grant of anticipatory bail interferes with the investigation of an offense.
- Anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of rule.
- The power under Section 438 of the Code should be sparingly exercised in appropriate cases.
- Arrest is part of the investigation procedure to secure the presence of the accused and other purposes.
- Prima facie involvement of the petitioners is found from the FIR.
- Factors and parameters for anticipatory bail from Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat case.
- Anticipatory bail should be extended only in exceptional cases as per Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana case.
- Judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to decide on anticipatory bail.
- The court must consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation.
- The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice should be assessed.
- Other relevant factors should be taken into account before granting anticipatory bail.
- The balance between investigation and personal liberty needs to be carefully weighed.
- The facts of the case necessitate the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
- Given the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Decision
- The present petition has failed and stands dismissed
- The reasons provided for the dismissal of the petition have been outlined
- The RPC involved in the judgement has not been successful
Case Title: HASAN @ LALU BASIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/9157/2024
