Plea Of Being Misled By Sellers An Afterthought: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To 62-Yr-Old Man In Beef Possession Case
The accused booked in a case registered under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act had approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking the grant of anticipatory bail.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old man who was found in possession of 50 kgs of beef. The High Court held that his plea of being misled by the sellers was a clever ploy.
The accused booked in a case registered under Section 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act had approached the High Court seeking the grant of anticipatory bail.
The Single Bench of Justice Aaradhna Sawhney held, “The plea now taken by petitioner is that he was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed him that the meat was not Beef is clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of. Resultantly, the Court is of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of petitioner is needed to find out, who all are involved in this incident, where are the Cows slaughtered, how their meat is sold, who all are the purchasers etc., hence, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him for the grant of this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.”
Advocate Jasbir Singh Dadwal represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora represented the respondent-UT, Chandigarh.
Factual Background
A complaint was filed by Rajinder Sharma, son of the President of Gau Raksha Dal, pointing out that he, along with other persons, who are residents of Village Burail, Chandigarh, received information that the petitioner was supplying ‘Beef’ on an Activa. When the complaint, along with others, reached the disclosed site, they noticed the petitioner standing in front of a shop. It was the prosecution's case that 50 kgs of Beef was found in the said vehicle. The complainant further pointed out that ‘Cow’ is a sacred animal of the Hindu Community, their religious sentiments are attached to it, and this misdeed on the part of the petitioner had hurt their feelings. Thereafter, the police received the information and arrived at the spot.
When questioned, the petitioner came up with the plea that it was Buffalo meat and he had purchased the same against two bills allegedly issued by two shops. Initially, a case under section 299 of the BNS was registered against the petitioner, who was granted the concession of bail. The sample of the meat was taken into possession by the police authorities, which was sent to the National Meat Research Institute. As per the report, the meat was identified as “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox)”. Thereafter, Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, was added. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court. The 62-year-old petitioner raised the defence of false implication.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025) wherein it has been held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner.
The Bench did not take note of the petitioner’s plea that he was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed that the meat was not Beef. This, according to the Bench, was an afterthought. Considering that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was needed to find out the entire mechanism involved, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Noor Mohammad v. State of U.T. Chandigarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:006752)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Jasbir Singh Dadwal
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora, Advocates Devinder Rajput, Sushant Gupta