Faruk vs State Of H.P.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 22.04.2021, in FIR No.47/2021, dated 18.04.2021, registered under Section 379, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 11

of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 3,5 & 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, at Police Station Tissa, District

Chamba, H.P. By means of present petition, prayer for his enlargement on regular bail has been made.

The FIR was registered against various persons on 18.04.2021 at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba. The gist of the FIR is that on the basis of a

complaint received on 17.04.2021, at about 9.30. A.M., a raiding party was constituted which reached the place of Gazi Gujjar at Adan Mount. Three

oxen and one cow were found in the ground floor. On the first floor, three persons, i.e. Mohmmad Ashraf, Bablu Ahmmad and Mohmmad Irfan were

present, who disclosed that Mohmmad Amin alias Meenu, Shafee and Rehman had called them from J&K for purchasing some animals and it was for

this purpose that they were present at Gazi Gujjar’s place. As a result of investigation, the police party also came to know that Meenu, Shafee and

Rehman had actually stolen four animals. One was slaughtered for consumption. The details about mode and manner of commission of the alleged

offences against these accused in the FIR, need not to be drawn into at this stage for adjudication of the present bail petition.

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 22.04.2021, two persons i.e. Jai Ram and Mangtu recorded their statements with the Investigating

Agency to the effect that they had overheard a conversation on 16.04.2021 at around 10.30 A.M. between Mohmmad Amin alias Meenu, Faruk (bail

petitioner) and Lateef where the petitioner had expressed his intention to sell his cow to the other two and had instigated them to slaughter one animal

for the entertainment of the persons called from J & K. On the basis of the statements, the petitioner was arrested on 22.4.2021 and was named as an

accused in the FIR.

Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no role whatsoever to play in the FIR in question. Petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the FIR on 22.04.2021, only on the basis of hearsay statement of one Jai Ram and Mangtu. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that in

case said Jai Ram and Mangtu had overheard some conversation between petitioner and the other accused on 16.04.2021, then there was no reason

for them not to disclose it to the police till 22.04.2021. He further submitted that investigation in the matter is complete in so far as petitioner is

concerned. Learned Senior Counsel also stated that petitioner will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed upon him in case of his

enlargement on bail.

Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is an accused of serious offence

under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and The Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. He further submitted that in case this

Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, the same be made subject to stringent conditions.

A perusal of the status report indicates that FIR was registered on 18.04.2021 against certain individuals who allegedly committed the offences

under Sections 379, 34 of IPC and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as well as The Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. As per

status report, three oxen and one cow were retrieved from place of Gazi Gujjar. These four animals were to be sold to certain individuals from J&K

named in the FIR by certain individuals belonging to Himachal Pradesh named in FIR. Status report further reveals that one animal was slaughtered

by accused persons belonging to State of Himachal Pradesh. However the name of the petitioner is not directly linked with the offences alleged in the

FIR. There is no allegation in the status report that animals retrieved from the place in question belonged to the petitioner or were sold by him. There

is no allegation that he had called the other accused persons from J&K for the purpose of selling his cow. The only allegation against the petitioner is

based upon the hearsay statements of Jai Ram and Mangtu recorded on 22.4.2021, to the effect that they on 16.04.2021 had overheard petitioner

conversing with two of the accused persons belonging to State of H.P., trying to arrange sale of his cow. Considering the allegations against the

petitioner as well as the fact that he is in custody w.e.f. 22.04.2021, petitioner’s further incarceration is not warranted in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The role of the petitioner in the FIR, if any, is entirely different from the role of the main accused persons. The petitioner is

aged 37 years and is stated to be a local resident of P.O. & Gram Panchayat Sanwal, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba. He is in custody w.e.f.

22.04.2021. His further incarceration more so in the present COVIDÂ19 pandemic is not going to serve any fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the present

petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.47/2021, dated 18.04.2021, registered under Section 379, 34 of Indian

Penal Code, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 3, 5 & 8 of The Himachal Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, at

Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/Â, with one local surety in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:Â​

(i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law.

(ii) . Petitioner shall not temper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) . Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(iv) . Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the

facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.

(v). In case of launching of prosecutor, petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in

the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, EÂ mail,

PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

(vii) Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities. It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR under

the Act, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. This shall also be

considered as a negative factor for consideration of his future bail applications, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondentÂState shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter. Any observation hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression on merits of the case and learned Trial Court

shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made hereinabove.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Copy dasti.