RAZIYA ABDULRAUF KACHONA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.

(2.) Learned advocate for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady and she has nothing to do with the offence. She is falsely enroped in the offence. The allegations against the present applicant is that on a secret information is received to the police qua selling of cow beef and thereafter, raid was conducted and at that time, the present applicant was present at the spot and she happens to be sister of accused No.1 and her presence was natural at the spot, there is no allegations against her qua slaughtering or cruelty to animal. Her presence was natural and based on the statement of co-accused, she arraigned as an accused. Whatever allegations are levelled is qua supplier of beef i.e. accused No.5. In the present case, accused Nos.2 and 3 are owner of house and accused No.1 was selling the beef. Applicant is having no past antecedents. Now nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant and therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. Learned APP has submitted that present applicant was present at the spot, where the raid was conducted and she was selling the beef along with the co-accused. Learned APP has further submitted that the present applicant is involved in the offence. Considering the severity of punishment and involvement of applicant, it was found that there was slaughtering of cow progeny, which will effect the religious sentiments. If she released on bail, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out to tamer with the evidence and to breach the public tranquility and to indulge again in similar type of illegal activity and hence, as custodial interrogation of the applicant is required, he has requested to dismiss the present application.