Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in Cow Slaughter Case, Flags Police Non-Compliance with Section 105 BNSS Audio-Video Recording Mandate

The Lucknow Bench grants interim anticipatory bail to four accused not named in the FIR, and rebukes police for ignoring the statutory audio-video recording requirement under BNSS.

Justice Rajeev Bharti, sitting singly at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 10 August 2026 granted interim anticipatory bail to four applicants booked under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act in Case Crime No. 0122/2026, registered at Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur. None of the four applicants was named in the FIR; their names surfaced only through statements of co-accused persons. While extending the protection, the Court took pointed note of a wider failure: despite a clear statutory command in Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requiring audio-video recording of searches and seizures, the provision “is practically not implemented” by police across the State.

The Charge and the Applicants' Position

The FIR was registered under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The four applicants — Naseeb Ahmad and three others, including applicant no. 3 Mohd. Akram — sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Counsel for the applicants, Saurabh Upadhyay and Vikalp Shukla, argued that the applicants were falsely implicated. Their names did not appear in the FIR itself and entered the record only because co-accused persons named them in their statements during investigation. The applicants stated they had no previous criminal history and undertook to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The applicants also drew the Court's attention to a DGP Circular dated 21 July 2025 issued by the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, which expressly mandates audio-video recording of searches and seizures at the place of search or recovery. They argued this requirement was not followed in the present case. The Trial Court had separately rejected the remand application of applicant no. 3, Mohd. Akram, by order dated 28 July 2026.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed the application on behalf of the State but, as recorded by the Court, could not dispute the factual submissions made by the applicants' counsel.

The Court's Observations on Section 105 BNSS

Before turning to the merits of bail, Justice Bharti set out the text and purpose of Section 105 of the BNSS. The provision requires that searches and seizures, including the signing of seizure lists by witnesses, be recorded through audio-video electronic means and that such recordings be sent immediately to the concerned Magistrate.

The Court observed that this requirement is “practically not implemented” despite being a clear statutory mandate. In the Court's view, non-compliance with Section 105 cannot be attributed to complexity or burden: “In an age where audio-video recording is the norm, compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS should not be seen as burdensome or complex.” The Court expressed that it could not understand why meeting this straightforward requirement presents a difficulty for police authorities.

The observation is significant in the context of this case because the applicants had specifically cited the DGP Circular of 21 July 2025 — itself premised on the same statutory requirement — to question the manner in which recovery and search were conducted. The Court's remarks bring direct judicial attention to the gap between the law as written and its actual enforcement on the ground.

Reasons for Granting Interim Anticipatory Bail

Justice Bharti considered three factors in combination when deciding to grant the interim protection.

The applicants had no previous criminal history. Investigation in the case was still ongoing, and all four applicants had given an undertaking to cooperate. The Court also took into account that co-accused Salman had already received interim anticipatory bail from the same Court on 26 May 2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 1002 of 2026. Consistency in treatment of similarly placed accused persons weighed in the applicants' favour.

On these facts, the Court found it appropriate to extend interim anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Conditions Attached to the Bail

The interim protection operates until the next date of listing or until submission of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. In the event of arrest or surrender, the applicants are to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, investigating officer, or SHO concerned.

The following conditions were imposed:

• The applicants must report to the investigating officer within seven days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
• They must cooperate with the investigation and must not influence any witness.
• They must remain present whenever called by the arresting officer, investigating officer, or SHO for investigation or interrogation.
• They must not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

The Court directed that a counter affidavit be filed within two weeks, with any rejoinder to follow within one week thereafter. The matter is listed after four weeks.

The Court also made clear that any default in complying with these conditions would entitle the investigating agency to move an application for vacation of the interim protection.

Order

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 1684 of 2026 was allowed in part by granting interim anticipatory bail to all four applicants — Naseeb Ahmad and three others — subject to the conditions set out above. The order was passed on 10 August 2026 by Justice Rajeev Bharti at the Lucknow Bench.