‘Can’t injure man to rescue animals’
Observing that one cannot inflict injuries on human beings while rescuing animals, the Bombay high court on Thursday allowed a bail application to be withdrawn when it was just about to reject the application.
The complainant had sustained severe head injuries after 10-12 members claiming to be from the Gau Raksha Samiti intercepted a tempo with livestock on the Pune-Satara Road on June 14 this year and assaulted four persons in the tempo.
The defense counsel for the applicants claimed that the alleged act of injuring had taken place when they were rescuing livestock that were being ferried to a slaughterhouse.
“There were 17 bulls, four buffalo and cow calves in the tempo and they were being taken to the slaughterhouse. They were rescued by the applicants and the animals were in very bad shape,” said accused Shailendra Dixit’s defense counsel.
“You can’t inflict injuries on human beings while rescuing animals. How can you use force while rescuing animals? The victim is not even in a position to talk due to his injuries,” said Justice Abhay Thipsay. Justice Thipsay added that only when the chargesheet is filed and investigation is over, the picture would become clear.
Appearing for the original complainant Raes Shaikh, advocate Shamsher Khan Pathan, said, “The victim was so brutally assaulted with an axe that he is still unable to give a statement. The defence in their initial argument had also stated that two bulls were found dead inside the tempo according to the post-mortem report submitted by them. However, the post-mortem report is dated June 3, and their arguments were nothing, but a sham.”
The defence noted the error and said that it must have been a mistake on the part of the advocate who appeared for the accused in Pune, where the bail applications of all the accused were rejected earlier.
On the same day of the incident, out of the 12 assailants, only four were arrested and remanded to the custody of Dattwadi police station in Pune. The remaining eight were reported absconding.
After extended arguments, the defence sought permission to withdraw the bail application and was granted liberty to apply afresh.
Post new comment