E-Paper
Mere possession of meat not an offence: HC
Mere carrying of meat by any person by itself cannot amount to sale or transport of beef or beef products, unless is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef, says court
PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court has held that mere possession of meat is not an offence under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, unless it is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef.
Making these observations, Justice Vikram D Chauhan granted bail to one Ibran alias ‘Sheru’ of Pilibhit district, who was arrested in March 2023 in connection with alleged recovery of 30.5 kg of meat and was booked under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
The court said in this case, the prosecution had not demonstrated with cogent evidence that the substance recovered was beef or beef product.
“Mere carrying of meat by any person by itself cannot amount to sale or transport of beef or beef products, unless is shown by cogent and sufficient evidence that the substance recovered is beef,” stated the court.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that 30.5 kg of meat was said to have been recovered from the house of a co-accused Ivram. It was further submitted that the applicant is a painter and was doing his job of painting in the house when the raid was conducted.
On the other hand, the state counsel opposed the bail application, saying that the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act had been enacted to prohibit and prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny in the state. The applicant had been found to have committed an offence under the said Act, he added.
While granting the bail, the court (in its order dated May 25) added: “No material has been shown by the state counsel to demonstrate that the applicant has slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered or offered and cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh.”
“The alleged act cannot be stated to come within the ambit of UP Cow Slaughter Act. Further, no report of competent authority or authorized laboratory has been shown to demonstrate that the meat recovered is beef,” observed the court.
