HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9640 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicants, the Learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 179 of 2026, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station- Saiyadraja, District Chandauli, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants apprehend their arrest in the above- mentioned case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the police detained a vehicle being UP 65 CT 5173 and arrested one accused Suni Lal and from his possession, four cows, which were supposedly being taken for slaughter, were recovered. In the confessional statement of co-accused, the name of the applicants has surfaced. The applicants are not the owners of the vehicle in question. They have only been implicated by the police as they have criminal history of cases under the Cow Slaughter Act. The applicant no. 1 has a criminal history of one case and applicant no. 2 has a criminal history of two cases. The applicants are brothers and have been implicated in the present case only due to police action. The applicants are on bail in previous cases. 4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that the name of the applicants has been disclosed in the statement of co-accused and the investigation is still pending and the applicants may be required for custodial interrogation. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that applicants are on regular bail in similar cases under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act and being repeat offenders, may not be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Kumar Yadav, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kush Kumar @ Nirahu @ Bharat And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) considered for bail grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on the record. 7. The applicants' names have figured in the F.I.R. on the confession of the co-accused Sani Lal. The vehicle which was carrying the four cows does not belong to the applicants. Except the confessional statement of the co- accused, that does not appear to be any direct evidence of the applicants' involvement in the crime in question. No meat or carcass has been recovered from the vehicle in question. 8. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. 10. In the event of the arrest of the applicants -Kush Kumar alia Nirahu alias Bharat and Sonu, they shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:- i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. 12. 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. September 30, 2026 Sartaj NABAIL No. 9640 of 2026 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- SARTAJ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad