Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

No pre-arrest bail for man facing charges of transporting beef to Ahmedabad

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a businessman from Mumbai who is accused of transporting 1,065 kg of beef which is banned in Maharashtra as well as Gujarat.
A bench of Justice RN Laddha was hearing the plea filed by 64-year-old Yamin Yasin Qureshi who is a resident of Jogeshwari West.
The prosecution case is that on 29 July 2024, around 4.30 am, confidential information about a tempo transporting beef from Sangamner to Ahmedabad via the Mumbai highway was received. Acting on this input, the informant and others waited near Ajit Palace Hotel on the Ahmedabad highway and spotted the tempo at 5.50 pm.
The informant and others attempted to stop the vehicle, escorted by a Skoda car that fled the scene. The informant contacted the police, and officers from Kashimira Police Station arrived, taking the vehicle and its two occupants into custody.
At the police station, a veterinary medical officer and witnesses were called, and they collected beef samples from the vehicle.
The vehicle was subsequently taken to a weighbridge, where the beef was found to be about 1,065 kg. The police seized the vehicle, beef, and empty bags containing chaff.
Following the seizure, the police interrogated the apprehended accused, and during the investigation, it revealed that Akin Harun Qureshi and Farhan Gafar Qureshi of Sangamner had given them the beef through Anwar Hazi for transportation and delivery to Yamin Qureshi.
Advocate Rohit Vaishya, appearing for Yamin Qureshi, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime and the allegations against him are ex-facie spurious and without a bonafide foundation. Since the vehicle and the beef have already been
seized, there is no need for the applicant’s custodial interrogation.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke opposed the plea and submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant to implicate him in the crime and emphasises that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. He also pointed out that the applicant has three criminal antecedents of a similar nature.
After going through the facts of the case, the bench concluded that there is sufficient material against the applicant and his custodial interrogation would be necessary to uncover all aspects of the facts.
“Releasing the applicant on pre-arrest bail would jeopardise the course of an effective investigation. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the application stands rejected,” said Justice Laddha.

en_USEnglish