Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 449 (HP)

Ateek Ahmed v. State of H. P.

2015-05-04

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order : P.S. Rana, J. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 307 of 2014 dated 31.8.2014 registered under Section 11(D) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 8 of Prohibition of H.P. Cow Slaughter Act P.S. Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur (H.P.) 2. It is pleaded that applicant is only bread earner of his family and is a labourer and is agriculturist. It is further pleaded that applicant is innocent and he does not have any connection in the case. It is pleaded that bail application was filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge Nahan District Sirmaur vide bail application No. 122 of 2015 which was rejected on dated 4.4.2015. It is pleaded that applicant has been falsely implicated in present case. It is pleaded that owner of vehicle and main accused Irshad already stood released by the Court of learned JMIC Paonta Sahib. It is further pleaded that applicant is not owner of the cattle nor is the owner of vehicle. It is also pleaded that applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will abide by terms and conditions imposed by Court. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that on dated 31.8.2014 ASI Mohar Singh along with HC Jagir Singh, C. Ayub Khan, C. Jaagar Singh were posted in check post Bahral and HHC Sewa Singh and C. Ishwar Singh were on patrolling duty at about 6 AM. There is recital in police report that vehicle having registration No. HR-55F-3717 came and same was stopped for checking purpose. There is recital in police report that driver of vehicle told that ice-cream was loaded in the vehicle. There is further recital in police report that some voices came from inside the vehicle and on suspicion driver was directed to produce the documents of vehicle. There is recital in police report that two persons were travelling in the vehicle and one person boarded down from the vehicle and ran towards the forest. There is further recital in police report that some voices came from inside the vehicle and on suspicion driver was directed to produce the documents of vehicle. There is recital in police report that two persons were travelling in the vehicle and one person boarded down from the vehicle and ran towards the forest. There is recital in police report that driver of vehicle disclosed his name as Mohammad Hussain @ Mausim Khan son of Raiees Khan resident of Akbarabad, P.O. Dariyal Tehsil Swar P.S. Tanda District Rampur U.P. There is recital in police report that driver of vehicle disclosed the name of another person who fled away at the time of checking as Raoop son of Poona Chaudhary resident of VPO Dariyal Tehsil Swar P.S. Tanda District Rampur U.P. There is further recital in police report that vehicle was checked in presence of Ranbir Singh and Kedar Singh. There is also recital in police report that nine ox were kept in the vehicle. There is recital in police report that seizure memo was prepared. There is further recital in police report that site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses recorded. There is recital in police report that owner of animals and another person who was travelling in the vehicle have concealed themselves. There is further recital in police report that Ateek Ahmad filed the anticipatory bail application but he did not appear before the Court and thereafter his anticipatory bail application was dismissed. There is further recital in police report that co-accused Ateek Ahmad is to be arrested and other co-accused Naushad and Raoop are also to be arrested. There is recital in police report that co-accused Ateek Ahmad, Naushad and Raoop are resident of another State and they were carrying the animals for slaughter purpose in vehicle No. HR-55F-3717. There is recital in police report that religious sentiments of Hindus have been damaged and there is resentment in the Hindu community. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon applicant and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case as per police report co-accused Naushad and Raoop are still to be arrested. Court is of the opinion that cruelty to animal is a heinous offence. Courts are under legal obligation to protect the life of animals because animals cannot protect themselves. There are serious allegations against the applicant that applicant along with other co-accused was carrying nine ox in the vehicle which was closed from all sides. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In present case Court is of the opinion that for proper investigation custodial interrogation of applicant is essential. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then investigation of case will be adversely affected. In view of the fact that investigation is at the initial stage of case it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail at this stage. 8. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then investigation of case will be adversely affected. In view of the fact that investigation is at the initial stage of case it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail at this stage. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-applicant that if applicant is released on anticipatory bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses is accepted for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. There is apprehension in the mind of Court that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant will threat and induce the prosecution witnesses which would adversely effect the case. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order) 9. In view of my findings on point No.1 anticipatory bail application filed by applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of. Application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of.