The court emphasized that serious allegations of animal cruelty and past criminal conduct weigh against granting anticipatory bail.

ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.176/2022 of Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 7 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020 and Section 11 (1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 , on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-P.K.Raju, pending on the file of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Mysuru City.

2. Heard Sri. Afroz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and law-abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is reasonable apprehension of being arrested. Hence, he is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that a raid was held over the shed and 14 cows said to have been rescued. It is also stated that accused No.2 was apprehended. The petitioner is said to be the owner of the shed. He is not required for custodial interrogation. The offence committed by the petitioner is to be proved during trial. There was no equipment found to prove that the petitioner was slaughtering the cows, which were seized from the scene of occurrence. None of the provisions invoked, are applicable to the facts of the case. The offence is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause- title to the petition. He is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. He is the owner of the shed in question, where 14 cows were tied in an inhuman manner, for the purpose of slaughtering. Accused No.2 was apprehended, even though the petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case. The petitioner is involved in similar offence and a case was registered in Cr.No.1/2023 of Udayagiri Police Station and 21 cows were rescued. Considering the conduct and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he is not entitled for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case. If he is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer and he may abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

REASONS

7. The allegations made against the petitioner are of serious nature. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the shed in question, where raid was held and 14 cows were rescued. Accused No.2, who was apprehended at the scene of occurrence, is already enlarged on bail. It is stated that after registration of the present case, while the petitioner is absconding, he has involved in an another similar case registered in Cr.No.1/2023 of Udayagiri Police Station, where it is stated that at the instance of the petitioner, 21 cows were being transported in a cruel mann