Md Yusuf Qasim Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.07.15 19:38:21 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1913 of 2025 Md Yusuf Qasim Shaikh Age 58, Occ. Business, R/o. S.C.C. Room No.22, S V P Road, Near Vijayan Hospital, Woolen Single Chawl, Ambernath (W), Dist. Thane.

... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra (Ambernath Police Station)

...Respondent

---- Mr Dilip Kamath a/w Ms Asha Joshi, for the Applicant. Mr S V Walve, APP, for Respondent / State.

PSI Shahu Kaldate, Ambernath Police Station, Thane City, is present.

---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 14 July 2025 P.C.:

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.491 of 2025, registered at Ambernath Police Station, Thane City, for offences punishable under Sections 325 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5, 5(c), 9, 9(a), 9(b), and 11 of the

Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

2.

The prosecution claims that after receiving confidential information about banned cattle meat stored for sale near Ambernath West, a raid was conducted. Nine shops were inspected, and significant quantities of the prohibited meat were found. Samples were sent for forensic testing. Following this, a formal complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of the present crime.

3.

Mr Dilip Kamath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, asserts the applicant's innocence and argues that, although the applicant is the owner of the premises where the raid was conducted the said premises have been duly leased out to independent third parties who are in exclusive possession and control thereof. The applicant, he argues, has no direct or indirect involvement in the meat trade being carried out at those locations and derives no financial benefit from the sale of meat, other than receiving rent from the tenants. Mr Kamath further contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, despite the adverse observations in the FSL report pertaining to the meat that was seized during the raid. He submits that the mere ownership of the premises can not, in the absence of any incriminating material linking the

applicant to the alleged activity, justify the applicant's prosecution. The learned Counsel submits that there are no further recoveries or discoveries to be made from the applicant and the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. 4.

Mr SV Walve, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the applicant's request for pre-arrest bail and submits that the applicant is the owner of four out of nine shops where the prohibited meat was found. The offence is of a grave and serious nature. 5.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that a raid was carried out at nine commercial establishments pursuant to the receipt of confidential intelligence suggesting the storage and sale of prohibited cattle meat. Of these nine establishments, four were found to be owned or operated by the present applicant. During the course of the operation, the meat suspected to be in contravention of applicable laws was seized, and samples thereof were duly collected and forwarded for forensic analysis. Significantly, the forensic science laboratory report pertaining to the samples obtained from the applicant's premises yielded a negative result, indicating that the substance did not constitute prohibited meat. Furthermore, the investigation appears to be at an advance stage of completion,

and there remains nothing further to be recovered from or at the instance of the applicant. The prosecution's apprehensions regarding the potential for evidence tampering and witness intimidation can be adequately mitigated by the imposition of appropriate conditions. In light of these circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) In the event of the applicant's arrest in connection with CR No.491 of 2025, registered at Ambernath Police Station, Thane City, he shall be released on bail upon executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

(iii) The applicant, himself or through any other person, shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

6.

The application stands disposed of accordingly. [R.N. Laddha, J.]