Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned counsel for the State and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.
(2.) Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. As per FIR, accused applicant was found driving vehicle in which 82 bullocks and 30 cows were loaded, out of which 6 bullocks and 4 cows were dead. There are no allegations of violation of any of the provisions contained in U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Section 3 prohibits slaughtering of cow, bull or bullock and Section 5 prohibits sale of beef. Both these prohibitions do not find to have been violated, as nothing is mentioned in the recovery memo. The learned Magistrate and Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not bother to go through the recovery memo which recites that none of the accused were found at the place of recovery nor any weapon of slaughtering has been recovered.
(3.) Now, allegations remains for the offence punishable under Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, which reads as follows: "If any person.......(d) conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or (e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or he shall be punishable (in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees but which may extend, to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend, to three months, or with both.";