Mere Transportation Of Cow From One Place To Another Within State Won’t Come Within Ambit Of UP Cow Slaughter Act: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere possession of live cow/bullock or transportation of cow from one place to another within the State of Uttar Pradesh would not come within the ambit of the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed, “Mere possession of live cow/bullock by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under the Act No. 1 of 1956. … Mere transportation of the cow from one place to another within the Uttar Pradesh would not come within the ambit of Section 5 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1956. Mere transport of cow within Uttar Pradesh would not amount to committing, abetting or attempting to commit an offence under U.P. Act No 1 of 1956.”
The Bench while dealing with a bail plea said that there is no independent witness of the said recovery and that no fact, circumstance, or material has been shown by the counsel for the State to demonstrate that transport or offer for transport or cause to be transported of any cow, or bull or bullock, is from any place within the State to any place outside the State.
Advocate Vishwa Nath Pandey appeared on behalf of the applicant while AGA appeared on behalf of the State.
In this case, it was submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was falsely implicated and that there was no independent witness of the recovery. It was further submitted that there was no allegation of slaughter against the applicant and that the procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code was not followed.
It was also contended that the applicant was not apprehended from the spot and six cows were recovered from one vehicle but there was no evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime. It was submitted that the co-accused were already enlarged on bail and the applicant having no criminal history was languishing in jail since March 2023.
The High Court in the above context noted, “No material has been shown by learned AGA for the State to demonstrate that the applicant has slaughtered or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh. The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of section 2(d) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. There is no independent witness of the recovery.”
The Court further noted that no material and circumstance was shown by the AGA for the State to demonstrate that any physical injury to any cow or its progeny to endanger the life thereof such as to mutilate its body or to transport it in any situation whereby endangering the life thereof or with the intention of endangering the life thereof does not provide with food or water, by the applicant.
“… the applicant is not guilty under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956. … No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Kundan Yadav v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:115584)
