Mohd. Shanu v. Abdul Majid
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the…
Judgment
Heard Sri Abdul Majid, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2025, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station-Nigohi, District-Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. Since no animal was slaughtered in the present case, no offence is made out under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. If at all any offence is disclosed, the same would fall only within the ambit of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
Operative part
1960. The applicant was not named in the FIR and the applicant was arrested by the police after two days after the incident and his name has come on the information received from the squealer. Criminal history of one case stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.06.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR 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.
Let the applicant-Mohd. Shanu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be 2 BAIL No. 29397 of 2025 released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 10, 2025 Karan (Krishan Pahal,J.) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11; Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.