IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

A.B.A. No. 86 of 2023

------

Mahboob Alam @ Haji Mahboob

....

....

….

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

....

....Opposite Party

------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Addl.P.P

------

Order No.04 Dated- 07.02.2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Pithoria P.S.

Case No.146 of 2022 instituted under Sections 12 (1)/12(2)/13 of

Jharkhand Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 the

petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of

anticipatory bail.

It has been alleged that on getting information that the

prohibited meat are being sold in the Hotel of the petitioner, the

informant along with other police officials raided at the Hotel and

apprehended one Yasif Ansari, who disclosed that he is selling

prohibited meat on the instruction of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner, aged about 73 years is innocent and has committed no

offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case only

on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that the flesh

seized from the hotel of the petitioner was of goat and not of any

bovine animal. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is further

submitted that petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the

investigation of the case and will not indulge in tampering with

prosecution evidence and will abide by all terms and conditions

imposed by this Court in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.

Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the

privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State vehemently

opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and

submitted that from the F.S.L. Report also, the seized flesh has

been found to be of bovine animal and there is recovery from the

hotel of the present petitioner and hence, he does not deserve the

privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the factum of recovery from the hotel of the

petitioner and his indulgence in the serious offence of cow

slaughtering at prohibited place, I am not inclined to extend the

privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands

rejected.

Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below

within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the learned court

below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being

prejudiced by this order.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

APK