Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court held that the petitioner, accused under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was not entitled to pre-arrest protection. The Court directed that, considering the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the grave allegations, custodial interrogation was necessary and anticipatory bail could not be granted.

The case arose out of FIR No. 111, dated 03.04.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh, under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Conviction Under Section 411 IPC Unsustainable Without Proof of Theft | High Court of Telangana Judgment Set Aside

According to the complaint recorded by ASI Jagat Singh, acting on secret information received during patrol duty on Tawadu road near Palla turn, the police set up a blockade to apprehend suspects allegedly engaged in transporting cattle for slaughter. The informer stated that three individuals—Tasleem, Aman, and Asif—were engaged in the business of cow slaughter and would be travelling in a Tata Intra vehicle (No. DL 1 LAN 8186) from Nuh side to Rajasthan. The informer also specified that Tasleem was piloting the vehicle on a motorcycle without a number plate, Aman was driving, and Asif was accompanying him.

At the blockade, the police intercepted the motorcycle and vehicle. The motorcyclist, Tasleem, attempted to flee but was apprehended after falling due to road conditions. Aman, the driver of the vehicle, was also caught. Another individual, later identified as Asif (the present petitioner), managed to escape from the conductor’s side. Upon checking the intercepted vehicle, two cows were found confined in the cabin in a state described as hungry and thirsty. Alongside, slaughter implements including a knife and an axe were recovered. The cows, vehicle, and motorcycle were seized, and a formal complaint was filed by Constable Sudhir at Police Station Sadar Nuh, leading to the registration of the FIR.

The petitioner later approached the High Court under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, that no recovery was effected from him personally, and that co-accused Aman had already been granted regular bail on 22.04.2025. It was further submitted that the petitioner was ready to join investigation and would cooperate fully with authorities.

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the bail plea, contending that the offence of cow slaughter was grave and serious. It was submitted that the petitioner had been apprehended at the place of occurrence, was directly involved in the alleged offence, and that custodial interrogation was essential for a fair investigation. The State also argued that the petitioner’s case could not be equated with that of co-accused Aman, who had been released on bail after custody and investigation. The prosecution further raised apprehensions that the petitioner, if granted anticipatory bail, might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, after hearing both parties, recorded the following observations:

“Be that as it may, the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.”

The Court noted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents: “It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences. In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected.”

On the scope of anticipatory bail, the Court stated: “The protection under Section 482 BNSS is not an open invitation for habitual offenders to escape the process of law. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.”

Citing precedent, the Bench referred to Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730: “The Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that a person with criminal antecedents is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. Where the applicant has been shown to be habitually offending or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, the protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted.”

The judgment further invoked the cultural and constitutional context: “The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society… In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution of India as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of our society. The cow, the Court said, is ‘not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India’s agrarian economy.’”

The Court also addressed parity with the co-accused: “The contentions raised by the petitioner that he is at parity with the co-accused Aman already released on the concession of regular bail merits rejection. As per the material placed on record, the co-accused was taken into custody on 04.04.2025 and was only released on regular bail after investigation. The circumstances of release of the co-accused Aman cannot be said to be on the same footing as the present petitioner as the present petitioner is praying for the concession of anticipatory bail.”

Also Read: Manipur High Court | All State Establishments Obligated to Record Transgender Person’s New Name and Gender in Official Documents

The Bench concluded its observations by recording: “In view of the aforementioned, considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The possibility of the petitioner indulging in similar unlawful activities in the future, or tampering with the investigation, cannot be ruled out.”

The Court concluded that the principles of bail jurisprudence required a cautious approach in balancing liberty and justice. Justice Moudgil stated: “The jurisprudence of bail, as has evolved through our courts, teaches us to tread with caution to preserve liberty without compromising justice, order, and social equilibrium. The facts of the present case tilt the balance against the grant of protection under Section 482 BNSS and thus the court is not inclined to invoke the same in favor of the present petitioner in wake of his criminal antecedents and the grave and serious nature of the allegations in the present FIR.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Rosi, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Case Title: Aasif v. State of Haryana

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:099601

Case Number: CRM-M-42090-2025

Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil