Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Aaradhna Sawhney dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail by a 62-year-old accused booked for allegedly supplying around 50 kg of beef in breach of statutory prohibitions, after police claimed the meat seized from a two-wheeler was confirmed as bovine (bull/ox) in laboratory testing. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the wider chain behind the alleged illegal trade, including the source and distribution of the meat. It also declined to accept the defence that the accused was misled by sellers about the meat’s nature, treating it as an afterthought.

The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by a local resident associated with a cow protection group, who claimed to have received information that meat described as beef was being transported on a two-wheeler within Chandigarh. Acting on the information, the complainant and others reached the location and allegedly found the accused near a parked vehicle containing approximately 50 kilograms of meat.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

Upon police arrival, the accused asserted that the meat was buffalo meat and produced two purchase bills purportedly issued by meat sellers from Malerkotla, Punjab, and Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Initially, an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered, and the accused was granted bail. A sample of the seized meat was later sent for forensic examination. The expert report identified the meat as “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox),” following which provisions of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 were added.

Subsequently, the accused was served with notice to join the investigation but did not do so. An application for pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Court, leading to the filing of the present petition before the High Court.

The Court first noted the factual background leading to the registration of the case and recorded that “factual aspects leading to the lodging of the FIR have already been noticed”. The Court took note of the accused’s claim that the meat was buffalo meat and that he had relied upon the assurance of the sellers.

After referring to the forensic report, the Court recorded that “when the sample was sent to National Meat Research Institute Chengicherla, Hyderabad, it was opined by the experts that the meat was that of ‘Bull/Ox’.”

Addressing the defence plea of being misled by sellers, the Court observed that “the plea now taken by petitioner is that he was misled by the sellers… is clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.”

The Court also considered the prosecution’s submission regarding the need for custodial interrogation and noted 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.”

Before arriving at its conclusion, the Court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and recorded that “anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner.”

Also Read: Failure To Put DNA And Forensic Evidence To Accused Vitiates Trial: Punjab And Haryana High Court Quashes Conviction And Death Sentence, Orders Fresh Trial From Section 313 Stage

On the question of entitlement to pre-arrest bail, the Court stated that “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 extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.”

The Court directed: “accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jasbir Singh Dadwal, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor, UT Chandigarh, Mr. Devinder Rajput, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Noor Mohammad v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:006752
Case Number: CRM-M-72360-2025
Bench: Justice Aaradhna Sawhney