Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2714 (ALL)

GYANENDRA BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-11-30

AMAR SARAN, RAMESH SINHA

body2011
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest in case crime No. 1247 of 2011, under sections 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 3/5Ka/8 of UP Cow Slaughter Act, PS Chakeri, district Kanpur Nagar. The allegations in the FIR were that on 2.11.2011 at about 4.15 PM when the co-accused were going on a truck, the said vehicle was stopped at the U turn of of Ahirwan, and 18 cattle, loaded on the said truck were recovered. The truck was being led by a motorcycle bearing No. UP65-S-4513, which was driven by another co-accused Constable Sushil Kumar Mishra, PS Chamanganj, district Kanpur Nagar, whose work was to get the truck passed by the police personnel on the way. The persons, who were sitting on the truck and motorcycle, tried to run away, but Constable Sushil Kumar Mishra and two other persons namely Gautam Singh and Raj Kumar were apprehended at the spot. From these persons, some money, mobile etc. were recovered. Gautam Singh and Raj Kumar disclosed the name of the truck driver to be Ramzani and the other person, who fled from the spot to be Salim. The arrested persons further confessed that they were dealers for Ejaz, resident of Auraiya, Irshad, resident of Agra and Azam, resident of Bamrauli, Allahabad. They would purchase cattle and take them to Bihar for the purpose of slaughter. Their activities were being assisted by Constable Gyanendra Singh and Constable Sunil Kumar Shukla, the petitioners herein. The said two constables and Constable Sushil Kumar Mishra would assist in getting the truck loaded with cattle passed at different check points. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged by Jai Shanker Prasad, SHO on 2.11.2011 at PS Chakeri, district Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were not arrested at the spot. There was no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with this offence. They were posted at Varanasi. They have no criminal history. No evidentiary value could be attached to the confessional statements of the co-accused given to the police. As the raid has not taken place within two and half kms. There was no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with this offence. They were posted at Varanasi. They have no criminal history. No evidentiary value could be attached to the confessional statements of the co-accused given to the police. As the raid has not taken place within two and half kms. from the Bihar border it could not be said that the accused persons were attempting to commit any offence. The confessional statement was that the petitioners' used to help the arrested co-accused and the persons, who fled away from the spot in committing such crime. There was no evidence that they were helping the accused persons in the present case. Learned Additional Government Advocate produced the case diary of the case and also pointed out that there were call details showing that the present petitioners were in touch and were making regular mobile calls to the other co-accused, who are named in this case. At this stage when the FIR is lodged the evidentiary value is not to be considered and all that is required to be seen for arresting the accused person without any warrant of arrest under section 41(1) Cr.P.C. is that there may be credible information or even reasonable suspicion of the involvement of the accused. What evidence is eventually produced in the matter will be appreciated by the trial court. It cannot be said at this stage that no prima facie case whatsoever was disclosed against the petitioners or that the investigating agency could not have entertained even reasonable suspicion of the petitioners involvement in this crime. Furthermore, the petitioners being police personnel are keepers of the law and the allegations of being engaged in facilitating this crime of inter-state smuggling of cattle for the purpose of slaughter, the crime becomes graver. There is no reason for their false implication as admittedly they were posted at different places and there was sufficient material for showing their involvement in this crime. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners may be relevant when the bail plea is to be considered. For all these reasons, we see no good ground to quash the FIR against the petitioners or to stay the arrest of the petitioners. The writ petition lacks merits. It is accordingly dismissed. ——————