Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMAR SAROJversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted as there was no prima facie material establishing the applicant's active complicity and he was not named in the FIR.
Summary
Santosh Kumar Saroj applied for bail in a case under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and was only accused because he owned the vehicle used in the alleged offence. The court noted the lack of prima facie evidence of his active participation, the applicant's explained criminal antecedents, and the period he had already spent in custody. Considering the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the circumstances, the court found the case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and is implicated solely on the basis of vehicle ownership
- Whether the nature and severity of the offences under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — s. 11
- U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- vehicle ownership
- cow slaughter
- animal cruelty
- criminal procedure
- U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34099 of 2026
Santosh Kumar Saroj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Chauhan, Shiva Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 13 out of 109)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the
material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2026, under Sections
3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station - Atrauliya, District -
Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the matter. It is contended that the applicant is not
named in the FIR. He has simply been made an accused on account of him
being the owner of the vehicle. Criminal history assigned to the applicant
has been explained. He is in jail since 07.08.2026.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and
also considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR, that his
implication is primarily based on vehicle ownership without any prima facie
material establishing active complicity, the fact that his criminal antecedents
have been properly explained, and the period of incarceration already
undergone, this Court prima facie finds it a fit case to release the applicant
on bail.
BAIL No. 34099 of 2026
2
6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Santosh
Kumar Saroj, be released on bail 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.
September 24, 2026
Siddhant
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHANT SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…