Person booked for cow slaughter on the basis of conversation overheard by Police granted bail by Allahabad High Court; explanation sought from SP

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to one Suraj, accused of slaughtering three calves and charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (Suraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh).The court noted that the First Information Report was registered only on the basis of an alleged conversation between the accused and a third person which was overheard by police personnel..A single-judge bench of Justice Abdul Moin, therefore, granted bail to the accused stating that the applicant had not made any attempt to slaughter or had executed such slaughter and there was no evidence to support the claim of the prosecution. "It is simply on the basis of alleged conversation which was over heard by the police party (which curiously was being carried out in the bushes by the applicant and others) that a case under the provisions of Section 3 and 8 of the Act, 1955 has been invoked against the applicant and others," the Court said.The Court also asked the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur to submit a personal affidavit explaining how Sections 3 and 8 of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 could have been invoked against the applicant. It was claimed by the authorities that they had got two bulls, one bundle of rope, one hammer, one Ghadasa (small), one Ghadasa (big), one nail and twelve empty packets of 5 kg each from the accused.However, the Court noted that from the perusal of the FIR it was clear that neither the bulls which were found in possession of the applicant, had been slaughtered nor were they maimed or had any physical injury."From a perusal of the FIR, it does not come out that the applicant has made any attempt to slaughter or had executed the slaughter," the order stated. Thus, the culpability of the applicant under the Cow Slaughter Act of 1955 is clearly not attracted and it has been wrongly been invoked against the applicant, it added. .According to the First Information Report, four persons including the applicant, Suraj were arrested on the allegation that they had slaughtered three calves.It was alleged that from two bulls, one bundle of rope, one hammer, one Ghadasa (small), one Ghadasa (big), one nail and twelve empty packets of 5 kg each were recovered from their possession. The arrest was made on the basis of information received from the police informer and on the basis that the police party heard them "talking with each other in the bushes that they had slaughtered three calves and have received a huge amount of money and that now they were having two bulls in their possession and planned to slaughter them too.".The Court examined Sections 3 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.Section 3 of the Act states that "No person shall slaughter 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, anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any usage or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding". The Court also analysed the definition of "slaughter" which means killing by any method and includes maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in the 'ordinary course will cause death'.."From a perusal of Section 3 of the Act, 1955 it is apparent that where a person either slaughters or causes to be slaughtered or offers or causes to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock then he would be liable for the penalty as provided under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 meaning thereby that as per definition given in Section 2(d)of the Act,1955,killing by any method including maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in ordinary course will cause death is a sine qua non for invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 1955," the Court said. .The Court noted that section 3 would be attracted only when certain conditions are fulfilled as specified in Section 2(d)of the Act,1955 but in the present case mere recovery of two bulls from the possession of the applicant and others apart from the other instruments would prima facie indicate no case under Section 3. In this regard, the Court also adverted to its own 1962 decision in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz in which it had held that mere preparation for slaughter of an animal is not an offence. "The applicant is in jail since February 25, 2021 i.e a period of more than two and half months have been spent by the applicant in jail on the basis of certain sections which have been invoked against the applicant of the Act, 1955, which, as already indicated above would prima facie not be attracted in the said incident. In this view of the matter, the Court finds the applicant fit to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed," the Court ordered. .Further, taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court asked the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur to explain the reasons for invoking the cow slaughter law against the applicant. "The Court would have parted with the case after allowing the application for bail but considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court finds it in the interest of justice to direct the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur to file his personal affidavit specifically adverting to the averments made in the bail application as well as indicating as to how the cognizance of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act, 1955 have been invoked against the applicant. Let such a personal affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks failing which the Court may be compelled to summon the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur along with record to assist the Court," the Court directed. The matter will be heard again on June 16. .[Read Order]