Mumbai, Maharashtra – August 3, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Abdul Rauf Karim Qureshi, the owner of a vehicle allegedly used in the illegal transportation of cow-flesh, in a case that also involves serious assault and rioting. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Vijay S. Hingne, denied bail citing the severity of the offenses, the applicant’s alleged avoidance of investigation, and the risk of him repeating the offense or absconding.

Background of the Case:

The case stems from an incident on January 16, 2022, when Pratik Nanaware and his friend Ashish Barik, volunteers dedicated to cow protection and preventing illegal trade in cow-flesh, intercepted a vehicle transporting cow-flesh. According to the FIR lodged by Nanaware at the Chunabhatti Police Station, a mob of approximately 30 individuals, led by accused Aslam, attacked them with rods, sticks, and stones, causing severe injuries. The vehicle, an un-numbered truck, was seized by the police and found to be carrying cow-flesh and ice.

The FIR led to the arrest of nine individuals, seven of whom were subsequently granted bail by the court. Mohammed Faizan Mohammed Saeed Shaikh, another accused, was also granted bail on June 24, 2022, under similar terms. However, the bail application of Mohammed Mushtaq, the driver of the vehicle, was rejected on the grounds that he was directly involved in the illegal transportation.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Abdul Rauf Karim Qureshi, the tenth accused, was arrested on July 31, 2022, and subsequently charged in a supplementary charge-sheet. Qureshi’s defense, presented by his advocate Shri Sufiyan Qureshi, rested on several key points:

• False Implication: He claimed to be falsely implicated in the crime.
• Contradictory Statements: He argued that the FIR contradicted the statements of eyewitnesses.
• Vehicle Agreement: He presented a rental agreement dated December 7, 2021, showing that he had leased the vehicle to Mohammed Mushtaq for a monthly rent of Rs. 55,000.
• Mushtaq’s Responsibility: The agreement stipulated that Mushtaq would be solely responsible for any illegal activities involving the vehicle.
• Absence from Scene: He asserted that he was not present at the scene of the crime and had no involvement in the assault.
• Health and Family: He cited his age, health issues, and status as the sole breadwinner of his family.
• Lack of Direct Allegations: He pointed out that the FIR did not directly implicate him.
• Damage to Vehicle: He alleged that the complainants had damaged his vehicle, causing him significant financial loss.
• No Criminal Antecedents: He emphasized his clean criminal record and willingness to comply with bail conditions.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that:

• Repeated Offenses: The vehicle owned by Qureshi had been repeatedly used in similar illegal activities.
• Flight Risk: There was a high probability that Qureshi would repeat the offense or abscond if granted bail.
• Avoidance of Investigation: Qureshi had allegedly avoided the investigation, indicating a disregard for the law.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Hingne, after considering the arguments and reviewing the evidence, rejected Qureshi’s bail application. The court acknowledged the rental agreement but emphasized that the vehicle’s involvement in the illegal transportation of cow-flesh could not be overlooked. The court also noted that Qureshi’s arrest on July 31, 2022, nearly seven months after the incident, suggested that he had avoided the investigation.

The court concluded that Qureshi’s alleged tendency to disregard the law posed a significant risk of him absconding, influencing witnesses, or repeating similar offenses. Given the gravity of the offenses, which included serious assault and rioting under sections 307, 353, 326, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and sections 5(c) and 9(a) of the Maharashtra Animal Protection Act, 1995, the court found that granting bail would not be appropriate.

Outcome:

The court ordered that Qureshi and other under-trial prisoners be produced from jail for the framing of charges. The decision underscores the court’s commitment to addressing serious crimes and preventing potential repeat offenses, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues like animal protection and public safety.