In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment, declaring that the mere possession or transportation of cows within the state does not constitute an offense under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. This groundbreaking decision came during the bail hearing of a man who had been unjustly incarcerated for almost three months, despite no evidence of physical harm to the six cows discovered in his vehicle.
Justice Vikram D Chauhan, presiding over the case of Kundan Yadav versus the State, stated, "Mere possession of live cows or bullocks by itself cannot be considered committing, abetting, or attempting an offense under Act No. 1 of 1956... Mere transportation of cows within Uttar Pradesh does not fall within the purview of Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956," as highlighted in the court's order.
The court emphasized that the State failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the accused had inflicted physical injuries on any of the cows or their offspring, endangering their lives. It further noted the absence of witnesses or reports from competent authorities confirming any harm done to the cows. Additionally, the State was unable to produce any substantiating material indicating that the accused had engaged in cow, bull, or bullock slaughter anywhere in Uttar Pradesh.
Considering the lack of criminal antecedents and cooperation with the investigation by the accused, the court deemed him eligible for bail. Notably, the individual had already been detained since March of this year, making his release a matter of urgency. However, the court imposed certain conditions for bail, including the provision of a personal bond and two sureties of equal value.
Representing the applicant, Advocate Vishwa Nath Pandey skillfully argued the case.
This significant ruling by the Allahabad High Court carries significant implications for the interpretation and enforcement of cow protection laws. It not only clarifies the boundaries of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act but also emphasizes the importance of presenting compelling evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy