Categorical Information Provider
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Court docket claimed that simply possessing or wearing meat can’t quantity to the sale or shipping of pork or pork merchandise.
The court docket seen that wearing meat can’t be a punishable offence underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act except confirmed via cogent and enough proof that the substance recovered is pork.
“Mere ownership of meat on its own can’t quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence underneath Segment 3 of Act Number 1 of 1956. No document of the competent authority or approved lab has been proven to show that the beef recovered is pork,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whilst granting bail to the accused.
The Top Court docket in its Would possibly 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution may just no longer produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the ownership of the accused was once pork or pork product.
Accused Ibran was once held in March, this 12 months in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his ownership.
His recommend Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was once a painter and dealing at a area when a raid was once carried out.
Ibran’s legal professional additional submitted that there was once no proof to hyperlink his shopper with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was once falsely implicated within the case.
Passing the bail order, the Top Court docket claimed that there was once no subject material circumstance to signify that the accused applicant was once promoting or transporting or providing on the market or shipping pork or pork merchandise.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Court docket claimed that simply possessing or wearing meat can’t quantity to the sale or shipping of pork or pork merchandise.
The court docket seen that wearing meat can’t be a punishable offence underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act except confirmed via cogent and enough proof that the substance recovered is pork.
“Mere ownership of meat on its own can’t quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence underneath Segment 3 of Act Number 1 of 1956. No document of the competent authority or approved lab has been proven to show that the beef recovered is pork,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whilst granting bail to the accused.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
The Top Court docket in its Would possibly 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution may just no longer produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the ownership of the accused was once pork or pork product.
Accused Ibran was once held in March, this 12 months in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his ownership.
His recommend Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was once a painter and dealing at a area when a raid was once carried out.
Ibran’s legal professional additional submitted that there was once no proof to hyperlink his shopper with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was once falsely implicated within the case.
Passing the bail order, the Top Court docket claimed that there was once no subject material circumstance to signify that the accused applicant was once promoting or transporting or providing on the market or shipping pork or pork merchandise.