Allahabad High Court
EKHLAK @ MO EKHLAKversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismiss other than merit(DD/Non Prosec./Abated)
- Bench
- RAJEEV BHARTI
Holding
On a prima facie basis, the court held that the applicant was not apprehended from the spot and no laboratory analysis of the seized meat was performed, warranting the grant of interim anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ekhlak @ Mo Ekhlak under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (sections 3, 5, 8) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated because he was not apprehended at the spot and no laboratory analysis of the seized meat was conducted, while co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual allegations. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), the court found a prima‑facie case that the applicant’s arrest was not justified and therefore granted interim anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order directed that the applicant be released on personal bond and two sureties if arrested, and imposed conditions of cooperation with investigation, non‑influence of witnesses, and no travel abroad without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the alleged false implication and lack of forensic evidence.
- Whether the absence of apprehension at the spot and the non‑conduct of laboratory analysis constitute sufficient grounds for interim protection.
- Whether the precedent set by Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) applies to the present facts.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- false implication
- cow slaughter
- forensic evidence
- bail conditions
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S
438 CR.P.C. No. - 342 of 2025
Applicant :- Ekhlak @ Mo Ekhlak
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead
complainant as opposite party no.2 and to re-number the
opposite parties during course of the day.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party
no.1.
4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2.
5. First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with
regard to Case Crime no.Case Crime No.38 of 2021 under
Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Gosaiganj,
District Sultanpur.
6. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said
to have occurred on 22.01.2021 when applicant along with co-
accused is said to have been apprehended on account of cow
slaughter.
7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that
applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled
against him particularly since he was not apprehended from the
spot. Incorrect implication of applicant is also also evident
from the fact that the first information report itself indicates that
the police personnel already knew the applicant and co-accused
before hand. It is submitted that even otherwise no laboratory
analysis of the meat which was seized was conducted. It is
submitted that there is apprehension of arrest. It is also
submitted that co-accused Taukeer Ahmad @ Salman and Mohd
Arman as well as Ibrahim and Shahban have already been
granted anticipatory bail in Anticipatory Bail Applications
numbered 1770 of 2021 and 8449 of 2021 respectively.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the factual
aspects.
9. It is submitted that investigation however is ongoing.
10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima
facie, subject to further evidence being collected during
investigation it appears that applicant was not apprehended
from the spot and that no laboratory analysis of the meat seized
was conducted; co-accused have also been provided protection
as indicated herein above and therefore in view of law laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and
others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC
1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the
applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
11. List this case on 10.04.2024 along with service report.
12. Objections may be filed in the meantime.
13. In view of above, interim anticipatory bail is granted to
applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Ekhlak
@ Mo Ekhlak shall be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned
subject to following conditions:-
14. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he
will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will
remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O.
concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant
shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
15. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating
agency to move application for vacation of this interim
protection.
Order Date :- 24.3.2025
kvg/-
Digitally signed by :-
GIREESAN KV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…