Raja Quraishi vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.342 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/5B/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 429 I.P.C., Police Station - Chakiya, District - Chandauli, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Imtiyaz Ali and Dilshad Ali @ Bablu, who were arrested at the spot. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are unreliable. No recovery has been effected from the possession of the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that co-accused Dilshad Ali @ Bablu and Imtiyaz Ali have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.5.2024 and 7502 of 2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.7209 of 2024 and 7502 of 2024. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph-8 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 30.4.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Imtiyaz Ali and Dilshad Ali @ Bablu, who were arrested at the spot. No recovery has been effected from the possession of the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The co-accused Dilshad Ali @ Bablu and Imtiyaz Ali have been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than a year and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Raja Quraishi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and

(v) shall make his presence at the concerned police station on first Sunday of every month between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Manish Kr