CHANDIGARH v. Haryana

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Present Present Present Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana. Mr. Gautam Kaile, DAG Haryana , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. in case bearing FIR No.128 dated registered for the dated 11.06.2026, registered for the 3, 8, 13(1) and 13(3) of the Haryana offences punishable under Sections 3, 8, 13(1) and 13(3) of the Haryana 3, 8, 13(1) and 13(3) of the Haryana offences punish , at Police Station Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, at Police Station Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 Sadar Tauru, District Nuh, Haryana. Sadar Tauru, District Nuh, Haryana.

#2. The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that upon getting a secret information, to the effect that upon getting a secret infor to the effect that Sakir (petitioner herein) ) was engaged in the illegal business of cow slaughtering and that, on was engaged in the illegal business of cow slaughtering and that, on was engaged in the illegal business of cow slaughtering and that, on was engaged in the illegal business of cow slaughtering and that, on , he was slaughtering cows at his residence for the purpose of 11.06.2026, he was slaughtering cows at his residence for the purpose of , he was slaughtering cows at his residence for the purpose of , he was slaughtering cows at his residence for the purpose of 2026 37888----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----37888 20262026 37888 37888 2222 selling the meat, the police party conducted a raid. Upon noticing the arrival of the police party, one person allegedly managed to escape from the spot and was identified by the secret informer as Sakir (petitioner herein). A subsequent search of the premises allegedly resulted in the recovery of 45 kilograms of beef, besides slaughtering weapons, i.e., one axe, one pot, one wooden log, and one weighing machine.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that allegations leveled against the petitioner are concocted, improbable and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged place of occurrence or the articles purportedly recovered therefrom. It has been contended that the petitioner was neither apprehended from the spot nor was there any material to establish his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire prosecution case rests solely upon the information allegedly furnished by a secret informer and that no independent witness was associated either at the time of the alleged raid or during the recovery proceedings, thereby rendering the prosecution version highly doubtful and improbable. It has also been argued that, in the present case, the secret informer and the complainant are one and the same person, which is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and casts a serious doubt on the fairness and credibility of the investigation.

3.1. Learned counsel has asserted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the 2026 37888----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----37888 20262026 37888 37888 3333 recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and, hence, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the aforesaid submissions, the grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.

#4. Learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. It is argued that the petitioner is alleged to have been indulged in the business of cow-slaughtering and when the police raided the residence of the petitioner, he fled away from the spot; however, 45 kg of beef beside certain cow-slaughtering materials were recovered from the spot. It is, thus, argued that given the nature of offence, there exists a substantial likelihood that the petitioner may abscond from the process of justice and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation. On these submissions, dismissal of the present petition is entreated for.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

#6. As per the prosecution case and the material available on record, prima facie, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It is, prima facie, borne out from the record that the petitioner is alleged to have been engaged in the illegal business of cow slaughtering and sale of beef. The prosecution case further reveals that 45 kilograms of beef, along with articles purportedly used for cow slaughtering, namely, one axe, one pot, one wooden log and one weighing machine, were allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence. Prima facie, the allegations levelled 2026 37888----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----37888 20262026 37888 37888 4444 against the petitioner are serious in nature and disclose the commission of offences having significant societal impact.

6.1. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

#7. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation, as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 impediment in effective investigation. In StateStateStateState v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] p. 189, para 6) ““““6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third- degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that 2026 37888----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----37888 20262026 37888 37888 5555 responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.””””

#8. In view of the seriousness of allegations and the role attributed to the petitioner, this Court finds no compelling ground to extend the benefit of discretionary relief to the petitioner. Granting bail, at this stage, would not only undermine the administration of justice but may also embolden the accused.

#9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, the investigation is still underway and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is being sought for effective investigation and to ascertain the complete modus operandi, to identify other persons who may have been involved in the alleged illegal activity, and to facilitate the recovery of any further incriminating material, dismissed. if any. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed dismissed dismissed

#10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

#11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 14 , 2026 July 14, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 July 14 July 14 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No