Pre-arrest no bail for man accused of transporting beef to Ahmedabad

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Mumbai businessman accused of transporting 1,065 kg of beef banned in Maharashtra and Gujarat.

The bench of justice RN Laddha was hearing the plea of ​​64-year-old Yamin Yasin Kureshi, a resident of Jogeshwari West.

The prosecution alleges that on July 29, 2024, at around 4.30 am, secret information was received that the beef was being transported on a brisk basis from Sangamner to Ahmedabad via Mumbai highway. Based on this information, the informer and others waited near Ajit Palace Hotel on Ahmedabad highway and noticed the tempo at 5.50 pm.

The informant and others tried to stop the vehicle, which was accompanied by a Skoda car that fled the scene. The informant contacted the police and officers from Kashimira Police Station arrived and detained the vehicle and its two occupants.

A veterinarian and witnesses were called to the police station and beef samples were taken from the vehicle.

The vehicle was then taken to the weighbridge where it was determined that the beef was approximately 1,065 kg. Police seized the vehicle, beef and empty bags containing hay.

After the seizure, the police interrogated the captured accused and during investigation, it was revealed that Akin Harun Qureshi and Farhan Gafar Qureshi of Sangamner had given them beef through Anwar Hazi for transportation and delivery to Yamin Qureshi.

Advocate Rohit Vaishya, on behalf of Yamin Qureshi, submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the crime and the allegations against him were untrue and devoid of any factual basis. Vehicle and beef already
If it has been seized, there is no need for the applicant to be interrogated in custody.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Yogesh Dabke opposed the defense and stated that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the applicant was involved in the crime, emphasizing that the investigation was still in its early stages and granting pre-arrest bail would disrupt the investigation. He also noted that the applicant had a criminal history of three similar nature.

After examining the facts of the case, the panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant and that his interrogation in custody was necessary to establish all aspects of the facts.

“Giving the applicant pre-arrest bail would jeopardize the course of an effective investigation. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favor of the applicant. Therefore, the application is dismissed,” Justice Laddha said.