Allahabad High Court
Pyare Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 30 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100496 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21315 of 2025 Applicant :- Pyare Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that 16 cows were being transported by the other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused. There is no independent witness of the recovery. There is no allegation of slaughter against the applicant. The procedure for seizure as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.05.2025 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in Uttar Pradesh. The applicant has been found to have committed an offence under the abovementioned act.
5. Learned AGA for the State has not shown that the applicant has been previously convicted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.
6. 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. Mere possession of live cow/bullock by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting, or attempting an offence under the Act No. 1 of 1956. The maximum sentence imposed by section 3 read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.
7. 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. There is no independent witness of the said recovery. No fact, circumstance or material has been shown by learned AGA 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. The maximum sentence imposed by section 5A read with section 8 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 is ten years.
8. In view of the abovementioned, prima facie, the applicant is not guilty under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.
9. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.
10. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.
11. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
12. 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.
13. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
14. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.
14-A. In the instant case, evidence is the confessional statement of the co-accused while in custody of police. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no circumstance is admissible in evidence against an accused. Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to a police office under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the ground of public policy. The object of inadmissibility in evidence of the confession is to ensure that the person accused of offence would not be induced by coercion, threat, or force to make confession and officer would make every effort to collect the evidence of the commission of crime apart from confession. Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be used as evidence. No other material or evidence has been shown by opposite party which would indicate the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.
16. Let the applicant-Pyare Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 144 of 2025, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Adalhat, District Mirzapur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.6.2025
S.Prakash