Allahabad High Court

RAJU VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 16 September 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, finding no sufficient basis to deny bail.

Summary

The applicant, Raju Vishwakarma, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging that his vehicle was used to transport seven bulls for slaughter, invoking sections 3, 5 and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He contended that no meat, carcass, or slaughtering instrument was recovered, that he was not named in the FIR and was implicated only as the vehicle owner, and that mere transport of livestock does not constitute an offence. The State opposed bail, highlighting his prior conviction under the Cow Slaughter Act and labeling him a repeat offender. The Court examined the lack of material evidence linking the applicant to the alleged slaughter and, despite his criminal history, found no sufficient ground to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions, reserving the right to cancel it upon breach.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant can be granted anticipatory bail despite being a repeat offender under the Cow Slaughter Act.
Whether mere transport of livestock without evidence of slaughter constitutes an offence under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
Whether the lack of recovered meat, carcass, or slaughtering instruments justifies granting bail.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act — s. 11(1)(D)
U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act — s. 3, 5, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
cow slaughter
animal cruelty
repeat offender
bail conditions
transport of livestock
Uttar Pradesh law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9684 of 2026

Raju Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Mishra, Lackey Keshari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.325 of 2025, Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11(1)(D) the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Prayagraj, with a prayer to
enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in
the abovementioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He is the owner of a vehicle,
which was supposedly being used for transporting seven bulls allegedly
for the purpose of slaughter. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant
was not arrested from the spot and was not named in the F.I.R. The name
of the applicant was supposedly found out during investigation as the
owner of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel has submitted that the
applicant has a criminal history of one other case being Case Crime
No.325 of 2025 under the Cow Slaughter Act and it is due to the said
criminal history that the applicant has been implicated in the present case.
No meat or carcass was recovered nor any instrument which was used for
the purpose of slaughter from the vehicle in question was recovered.
Learned counsel has further submitted that mere transport of livestock is
not an offence under the Cow Slaughter Act.
NABAIL No. 9684 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the
applicant is a repeat offender and may not be considered for grant of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the explanation given by the applicant
with respect to his criminal history.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for
the parties.

6. From the offending vehicle in question, said to be registered in the
name of the applicant, no meat or carcass has been recovered. Seven bulls
are stated to have been recovered, which were allegedly being taken for
slaughter. No instrument which could be used for slaughter of the
livestock has been recovered from the vehicle in question.

7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant-Raju Vishwakarma, he shall
be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
furnishing a personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station
House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following
conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
NABAIL No. 9684 of 2026
3

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 17, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…