Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for bail and therefore granted bail.
Summary
Rahul Kumar Yadav was charged under Sections 3, 5A, 5B and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960. He applied for bail during the pendency of the trial, contending that he was not arrested at the spot and that his name appeared only in the co‑accused’s statement, which lacks evidentiary value. The Court examined the material on record, the submissions of counsel and the facts, and concluded that, on a prima facie basis, the applicant had satisfied the criteria for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and to appear before the trial court as required. The order does not affect the merits of the trial, and any breach of conditions will lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act during the pendency of trial.
- Whether the co‑accused’s statement, which implicates the applicant, can be treated as substantive evidence for bail denial.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11
- U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5A, 5B, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- cow slaughter
- animal cruelty
- sureties
- trial pendency
- evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31601 of 2026
Rahul Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.5 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit
Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2026, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty
of Animals Act, 1960, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, during the pendency
of trial.
4. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the
fact that the applicant was not arrested at the spot and his name has come up in the
statement of the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie the Court is of
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar Yadav, be released on bail in the aforementioned
case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the
court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial
court as required.
7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein
shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…