lliyas and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

I. S. Shrivastava, J.—Arguments on the second bail application filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C by the applicants No. 1 Iliyas, No. 2 Mubarik and No. 3 Hakin heard. The applicants are involved in Crime No. 71/2010 of Police Station- Kurawar, District- Rajgarh registered under Sections 279, 337, 304A, 429, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and u/s 6/9 of the M.P. Govadh Pratished Adhiniyam and Section 11 of the M.P. Krishi Paryavekshan Adhiniyam.

First bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew prayer after filing of the challant on 11/03/2010 in M.Cr.C. No. 3052/2010.

According to the prosecution story, on 03/04/2010 at about 5 am, at Tij Badli a truck bearing registration No. M.P.-09-HF-9457 in which cows and oxen were crammed, had turned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the said truck, 44 cows and oxen were being carried, out of which, 39 cows and oxen died and the remaining had sustained grievous injuries. In this accident, two persons sitting in between cattle had also died and the truck driver ran away. There were two registration numbers on both side of the plate. HR-38-N-9763 was on the one side and M.P.-09-9457 was on the second side, Hence, marg No. 0/10 was registered. Thereafter, at police station - Kurawar, District- Rajgarh, Crime No. 71/2010 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304A, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of the IPC and also under Sections 6/9 of the M.P. Govadh Pratished Adhiniyam and Section 11 of the M.P. Krishi Paryavekshan Adhiniyam. The bail application of the applicant was dismissed by the Court of Shri B.R. Patil, A.S.J. Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh in B.A. No. 45/2010.

It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that he has been falsely implicated in this case; there is no connection of the applicants with this offence; disposal of the trial will take time; investigation has been completed. It has been further argued that the first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew prayer after filing of the challant on 11/03/2010 in M.Cr.C. No. 3052/2010. Now the challan has been filed on 28/05/2010 and they are not required for investigation and hence he be released on bail.

Counsel for the respondent- State has opposed the bail application on the ground that offence of the applicants relates to cruelty of animal; 44 cows and oxen were crammed into the truck which is against the rules; the cows and oxen were being carried illegally in cruel manner; there were different registration numbers on both sides of the number plate of the truck to deceive the concerned authority; the truck was being driven rashly and negligently, due to which the truck met with an accident and turtled, in which 39 cows and oxen and two persons sitting in between the cattle died. Looking to the grievousness of the offence, the applicants are not entitled for bail, hence this bail application be disallowed.

Considered the circumstances. Case diary perused.

According to the evidence collected, Aliyas Khan had purchased the cows and oxen. He crammed the cows and oxen into the truck bearing registration No. M.P.-09-9457 with the help of Yunus Ali, Ahjad Khan and Naru. They had tied the legs of the cows and oxen and crammed them into the truck. Yunus Ali and Ahjad Khan sat in between the cows and oxen to handle them. Hakim Khan, who was the second driver of the truck was sleeping in the cabin of the truck and Mubarik was driving the truck at the time of the accident. At about 3 am in the night, the said truck met with the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver; the truck fell down into the culvert and became turtled. Hakim Khan and Mubarik Khan entrapped in the truck; they also sustained injuries. In the said accident, Yunus Ali and Ahjad Khan as well as 39 cows and oxen were killed. The said animals were being carried for purpose of sale at Aurangabad Market by the accused persons. The truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09-9457 was sold to Hanif Khan by Aslam vide agreement of sale dated 25/12/2009 and personal power of attorney dated 25/12/2009 was also in favour of Hanif Khan.

From the above facts, it seems that the said cows and oxen were being carried by the truck against the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and M.P. Krishik Pashu Prirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 and Transport of Animals Rules 1978 framed u/s 38(2)(h) of the Prevention of cruelty to animals Act, 1960. According to the provisions of Transport of animals Rules, 1978, at the time of transportation of cattle by road or by railway, following provisions have to be followed:

According to Rule 47 of the Act, at time of transportation of cattle by road and railway, a certificate of veterinary surgeon about their good health is necessary. According to Rule 48 of the Act, first aid box is necessary with each truck. According to Rule 54 of the Act, sufficient quantity of water and food has to be kept in truck for animals. According to Rule 56(c) of the Act, no truck shall carry more than six animals and at the time of the transportation by truck Anti-skid material will be placed at the bottom of the truck to avoid injuries to the animal. According to Rule 49 of the Act, a consignment board shall be displayed on the truck in red colour on which name of the person sending cattle and carrying cattle shall be displayed. Space of the cattle, quantity of their food and watter shall be displayed on it. According to Rule 50 of the Act, for cattle at least 2 � 2 square meter average space shall be made available. All these rules have been framed with the object that at time of the transportation of cattle by truck, cattle should not sustain any injury and should have minimum discomfort.

In this case, 44 cows and oxen were crammed into the truck which is against these rules. This shows that by extreme cruelty by tiding their legs, the animals were crammed into the truck. This shows that they were being transported against the provisions of law and only for their killing. If they were only for the sale in the market, then the owner of the cattle should have naturally vigilant that the transportation of cattle should be with proper care, so that the cattle should not sustain any injury and should not affect their price. It was also natural that during transportation of cattle, necessary arrangement for food and watter should have been made in the truck. The violation of this rules shows the object of the transporter of the cattle that the accused persons were carrying the cattle for their selling for killing in the cattle market. Hence, their object is against the provisions of law. Prima facie, in this case, extreme cruelty has been done with the cows and oxen.

Under these circumstances, everyone who is indulged in such type of activities is not entitled for bail. It is made clear that observations made in this case are only in respect to disposal of this bail application and they will not affect the merit of the case.

Under these circumstances, this bail application is disallowed.

Cc as per rules.