Landmark Ruling: Allahabad High Court Decrees No Offence for Possession and Transport of Cattle within UP under Cow Slaughter Act

Allahabad High Court: Possession and Transportation of Cattle within Uttar Pradesh Not an Offense under Cow Slaughter Act.

The Allahabad High Court recently clarified that the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of 1955 does not consider the mere possession or transportation of a cow within the state as a criminal offense. This ruling came during the hearing of a bail application filed by a man who had been arrested and detained for nearly three months after six healthy cows were found in a vehicle. He was charged with violating the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of 1956 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960.

Granting bail to the accused, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan made the following observation:

“The simple possession of a live cow or bullock does not amount to commission, facilitation, or an attempt to commit an offense under Act No. 1 of 1956… The order stated that merely transporting a cow from one location to another within Uttar Pradesh would not fall under Section 5 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956.”

Furthermore, it was noted that the State had failed to provide any evidence of physical harm to any cow or its offspring that endangered their lives.

“There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant caused any physical harm to a cow or its offspring, endangering their lives. No report from a competent authority indicates any physical harm caused to a cow or bullock. The court also highlighted the absence of an independent witness to the alleged recovery.”

The court also pointed out that the State had not presented any evidence of the defendant slaughtering or being involved in the slaughter of a cow, bull, or bullock anywhere in Uttar Pradesh.

As the State failed to demonstrate the defendant’s criminal history or non-cooperation with the investigation, the court ruled in favor of granting him bail. Additionally, it was mentioned that the defendant had been in custody since March of the present year.

Consequently, the court granted bail to the defendant on the condition that he furnishes a personal bond and two sureties of the same amount.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *