Bhura @ Babloo vs State of Uttarakhand & others

V.K. BIST, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in

connection with the impugned FIR dated 27.5.2018, being Case Crime No.282 of 2018, under Section 3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny

(Protection) Act and Section 3/11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, lodged at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar against the petitioner.â€​

On 27.5.2018 the complainant alongwith other police officials were on patrolling and when they reached Dandi Chowk, they received an

information that the accused persons were involved in slaughtering cow progeny and on the said information, the patrolling team reached the place of

incident and found that accused persons were slaughtering cow progeny and when the police officials tried to apprehend them, they managed to ran

away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,

interim protection should be granted to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore,

interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed,

Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR,

prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the

lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

From perusal of FIR, I find that contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter,

either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrender

before the Courts below and will move bail application and the courts below may be directed to decide his bail application same day. In my view,

every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it should

be decided strictly in accordance with law. It is provided that if petitioner surrenders before the Court concerned and moves bail application, his bail

application shall be considered by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day in accordance with law.