New Delhi: On June 24, Shaista, Shama and Fatima were busy with their chores at their home in Panara Gopalpur village, under the Sarai Akil police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Kaushambi district, when the police raided their house. Their target was the kitchen, where Shama was allegedly cooking “prohibited meat,” which the police claimed was beef. The personnel also confiscated meat from their refrigerator. All three women were arrested on suspicion of cooking cow meat under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and produced before a magistrate, after which they were remanded to judicial custody (sent to jail). However, it has not yet been confirmed if the meat was indeed beef or belonged to any other animal, as the forensic examination report of the seized meat remains pending. Meanwhile, the family of the accused alleges that a villager falsely implicated them due to a personal rivalry.The caseAccording to the First Information Report (FIR) registered at the Sarai Akil police station on June 24, 2026, a police team rushed to the spot after sub-inspector Jitendra Pratap Singh received information that beef was being cooked inside a house in Panara Gopalpur. An informant is said to have identified the house to the police and then left the spot. Four men allegedly fled from the house after the police arrived, say the FIR. Police could not catch them because the area was densely populated. Upon entering, the officials found that Shaista, Shama and Fatima were at home. The police claimed they recovered around one kilogram each of cooked and raw meat from the house. Samples were handed over to a team of veterinary officers for forensic analysis, while the remaining was buried in accordance with procedure.The police lodged complaints under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, which prescribe rigorous imprisonment for three to ten years in cases of cow slaughter, as well as a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh.Shaista, Shama and Fatima in police custody with Shaista’s one-and-a-half-year-old child. Photo by arrangement.The FIR also names Shama’s husband Mohammad Arshad, Shaista’s husband Mohammad Irfan, and Fatima’s husband Badku. Sunne, a resident of the neighbouring Khanpur village, is also named an accused. Shaista was taken into custody along with her one-and-a-half-year-old child.‘The one who brought the meat informed the police’Speaking to The Wire Hindi on condition of anonymity, a member of one of the accused’s families rejected the police’s version of events. They said that the person referred to as the “informant” in the FIR is the one who had brought the meat to the family. They said, “The individual behind this incident is a person from our village. He had bad intentions towards the women. When we stopped him from coming to our house, a dispute broke out between us.” Relations between the family and that individual had apparently improved over the past few months, and that is when the man, they allege, took advantage of the situation and framed the entire family.The relative said, “The person brought the meat and asked the family to keep it. Since it was the holy month of Muharram, we didn’t question the gesture. Some of the meat was cooked, while the rest was kept for later.” They added that after delivering the meat, the person called the local police outpost and informed the officials. This claim could not be independently verified as the FIR does not disclose the informer’s identity. The police also categorically refused to share any information in this regard.Police officers inside the home of the accused. Photo by arrangement.The relative identified the man as Mohammad Matloob, a fellow villager, and said he runs a steel business.The Wire Hindi contacted Matloob for his response to the allegations levelled against him. He heard the questions, but did not respond. Instead, he handed his phone to his mother, who denied the allegations. She said, “We don’t know anything about this and haven’t done anything. I am a poor woman and have raised my children by doing hard labour.” Later attempts to contact Matloob via calls and text messages were unsuccessful.Other villagers also distanced themselves from the matter, though they did occasionally mention there was a dispute between Matloob and the family.Contrasting testimoniesThe FIR says that the arrested women informed the police that the confiscated meat was beef and that it had been bought by other members of the family.The family, on the other hand, strictly refuted these claims and alleged that the police were framing them as part of a conspiracy.A relative of the family said, “Around 10-12 police personnel suddenly entered the house. There were no female police officers present, initially. They arrived later, when the women were arrested.”The FIR says female police officers were present during the operation.‘No forensic report yet, still in jail’The women’s family members said the police have not yet made the forensic report of the seized meat available. The accused’s legal counsel, Shiv Prasad Tripathi, said, “How can they conclude it was beef without a scientific examination?”The FIR states that samples of the meat were sent for examination. Nevertheless, at the time of publication of this report, the findings had not been made public.‘Villagers are living in fear’The family of the accused has a modest background. While some members work as tailors in Mumbai, others live in the village and rely on agriculture and keep small shops for their livelihood. According to a relative, the husband of one of the accused women had returned to the village merely a day before the incident.They said the atmosphere in the village was increasingly hostile towards them since the arrests. Nobody was willing to support them.“No one from the village is willing to even stand surety or [help us] pursue their bail application. If my name comes out, the police will come after me as well,” the relative said, requesting anonymity. He alleged the police were trying to implicate other members of the family, including some others who had returned from Mumbai a few days before the incident. As a result, most of the family, including the children, have left the village. “Only two elderly people are now left in the house – the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the arrested women, who are both around 90 years old,” he said. A crowd gathered outside the house of the accused after the police made the arrests. Photo by arrangement.In a video, one of them can be heard saying, “Only the two of us old people are left in the house. There is no one else. What will we eat? Who will cook for us? Who will take care of us? The police have taken away our daughters-in-law.”Police in the kitchen; what happened to civil liberties?Tripathi told The Wire, “On what basis can the police enter someone’s kitchen and inspect what they are cooking? The police cannot do this – nor can they arrest someone in this manner.”Social worker and Karwan-e-Mohabbat founder Harsh Mander said the issue is not just about the seized meat, but also about citizens’ privacy and the exercise of state power. According to him, if the police start entering homes to dictate what they should cook or eat, it is a serious question about citizens’ civil liberties. “This is a very dangerous sign,” he said. Mander recalled the 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri, also in Uttar Pradesh, saying, “Ten years ago, Akhlaq was lynched over allegations of possessing beef. Even then, questions were raised about whether the meat was actually beef. The forensic examination did not establish that it was beef, but by then he had already been killed.”He added, “Back then, the police stood by and silently supported the mob. Today, they no longer need mobs. The police itself can do that job.”The police’s version of eventsSub-inspector Jitendra Pratap Singh, on whose complaint the FIR was registered, declined to comment on the informer. When asked about the family’s allegation that a villager was the informer, he said, “If the family suspects someone, that’s their problem. The police have not disclosed the identity of any informer, so how do they know who it is?”About the delay in the release of the forensic report, Singh said, “It takes time,” adding that at the time of the arrest, the women admitted the meat was beef. When asked more questions, he said this reporter appeared to be taking the accused’s side. According to Tripathi, the women’s statements could have been made under fear or pressure. “The women are in police custody, the police can make them say whatever they want,” he said. Tripathi said the alleged “confession” the officer was relying on was not admissible as evidence in court. Bail applications on behalf of all three women have been filed before the sessions court and the matter is scheduled for July 6.The Wire Hindi also contacted Sher Singh, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Sarai Akil Police Station. He confirmed that arrests had been made in the case but declined further comment, saying the field officer was the more appropriate officer to talk to, but that officer had been transferred out of the post on June 30. In a conversation with The Wire Hindi, the former field officer, Abhishek Singh, said the police had acted on information provided by an informer. According to him, “Meat was recovered from the family’s possession and they admitted that it was beef. The doctor also gave a prima facie opinion that it appeared to be beef.” When asked how arrests were made before the forensic examination, he said police had “sufficient grounds” to believe the meat was beef. “The magistrate was satisfied with the grounds presented before the court, and only then granted judicial remand,” he said. Responding to the family’s allegation that the police was harassing its relatives, he said the police were currently only looking for the accused who were already named in the FIR. He said there were no unnamed accused at present.“Currently, the main focus of the investigation is to determine where the meat came from, where the animal was slaughtered and who was involved. Action will be taken against everyone found guilty,” Abhishek Singh said, emphasising that one of the accused already had cases registered against them under the Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act.The Wire Hindi also reached out to the Investigating Officer (IO) Biplesh Singh, who said the police did not arrest anyone who is not an accused. He said that a person’s family and neighbours are usually aware of what they eat.“People know when something is happening; it does not need to be defined separately. We received the relevant material and acted on that basis,” he said.Accused with previous chargesOne of the accused, Mohammad Arshad, was previously booked in two cases under the Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act. According to available court documents, two of the cases were registered at Sarai Akil Police Station, one in 2014 and the other in 2016. He is currently out on bail in both cases.In a 2018 case, Uttar Pradesh Police also sought action against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. However, the court noted in its order that a person cannot be treated as a gangster solely on the basis of previous cases. It added that the record could not independently establish that he was a habitual offender. Earlier, in a 2014 case, the prosecution had alleged that Arshad, along with others, had been transporting 16 oxen for slaughter. However, the charges were denied and bail was granted on the ground that no evidence of animal slaughter had been recovered. This article was originally published on The Wire Hindi.