Express News Service
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court claimed that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products.
The court observed that carrying meat cannot be a punishable offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act unless proven by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
“Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting or attempting an offence under Section 3 of Act No 1 of 1956. No report of the competent authority or authorised lab has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” observed Justice Vikram D Chauhan while granting bail to the accused.
The High Court in its May 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution could not produce cogent evidence that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused was beef or beef product.
Accused Ibran was held in March, this year in connection with the recovery of 30.5 kg of meat from his possession.
His counsel Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was a painter and working at a house when a raid was conducted.
Ibran’s lawyer further submitted that there was no evidence to link his client with the alleged recovery of meat and that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Passing the bail order, the High Court claimed that there was no material circumstance to suggest that the accused applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport beef or beef products.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court claimed that merely possessing or carrying meat cannot amount to the sale or transport of beef or beef products.
The court observed that carrying meat cannot be a punishable offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act unless proven by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
“Mere possession of meat by itself cannot amount to committing, abetting or attempting an offence under Section 3 of Act No 1 of 1956. No report of the competent authority or authorised lab has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” observed Justice Vikram D Chauhan while granting bail to the accused.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
The High Court in its May 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution could not produce cogent evidence that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused was beef or beef product.
Accused Ibran was held in March, this year in connection with the recovery of 30.5 kg of meat from his possession.
His counsel Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was a painter and working at a house when a raid was conducted.
Ibran’s lawyer further submitted that there was no evidence to link his client with the alleged recovery of meat and that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Passing the bail order, the High Court claimed that there was no material circumstance to suggest that the accused applicant was selling or transporting or offering for sale or transport beef or beef products.
