Pathan @ Salamuddin vs State Of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

A counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. In the counter affidavit, a criminal history of 19 cases has been mentioned in the affidavit thereof which includes the present case.

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the 19 cases mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A..

This case has been filed to release the applicant on bail in case crime no. 161 of 2011, under Section 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Hariparvat, District Agra.

The FIR dated 18.2.2011 was lodged against the applicant alleging offences under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. It is the contention of the applicant that the applicant is an innocent person and was falsely implicated in the matter. The case in the FIR is that the applicant was transporting the cows in a truck which is an offence under the provisions of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application stating that a criminal history of 19 cases appear in the District Crime Report Bureau list that has been filed along with the counter affidavit. He contends that several cases are pending against the applicant under the provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that several cases were lodged against the applicant including offences under Section 307 IPC and under Section 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as well as the under the provisions of U.P. Goondas Act. A perusal of the bail rejection order passed by the court below pertaining to the present case crime number reveals that the chargesheet was filed in the year 2011 and non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 15.12.2014. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also taken against him. The court below observed that how did the applicant come to know about the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., has not been disclosed. The court below rejected the bail application stating that due to the non-appearance of the applicant, the trial of the case has been held up.

Considering the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for bail. This bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.