"Mere possession of meat no offence:" Allahabad HC grants bail to accused in Cow Slaughter Protection Act

According to the applicant’s counsel, Ibran @ Sheru had been “falsely implicated” in the case, with no independent witnesses to support the alleged recovery of meat and no evidence connecting the applicant to the slaughter.

Prayagraj:The Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act observing that the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef products.

The bench headed by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan in the case noted that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.

According to the applicant’s counsel, Ibran @ Sheru had been “falsely implicated” in the case, with no independent witnesses to support the alleged recovery of meat and no evidence connecting the applicant to the slaughter. The counsel pointed out that the “procedure for seizure” outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code had not been followed, and there were no reports from authorized laboratories confirming that the recovered meat was indeed beef. In response, the A.G.A. for the State did not dispute the facts of the case but argued that the applicant had violated U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956, which prohibits and prevents cow slaughter in Uttar Pradesh.

After evaluating the arguments, the court found no substantial evidence against Ibran @ Sheru. It stated that the A.G.A. failed to demonstrate the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further highlighted the applicant’s lack of criminal history and full cooperation with the investigation and trial proceedings.

Quoting the well-established principle that “Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception,” the court emphasized the importance of upholding the applicant’s constitutional rights. It reiterated that the “purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial, and there were no circumstances suggesting that Ibran @ Sheru would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses”.

In its ruling, the court declared, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offense, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.”