High Court turns down pre-arrest bail of man accused of possessing illegal 50 kg beef: 'Misled plea an afterthought'

Punjab and Haryana High Court (File image)

• High Court denies anticipatory bail to man accused of selling beef
• Court finds accused's claim of being misled by sellers lacks credibility
• Custodial interrogation needed to trace wider beef supply chain

Did our AI summary help?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old man accused of illegally possessing and selling beef, holding that his defence of being misled by meat suppliers lacked credibility.

The court observed that the argument was raised too late and appeared to be an attempt to evade criminal liability rather than a genuine explanation.

The plea was heard by Justice Aradhana Sawhney, who underlined that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary form of relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of routine.

The judge said that the petitioner failed to show circumstances warranting such exceptional protection.

The criminal case against the petitioner was initially registered under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to deliberate and malicious acts intended to insult a religion and outrage religious sentiments.

After forensic confirmation of the nature of the meat, the police later invoked Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, which prescribes punishment for violations of the statute.

Rejecting the bail plea, the court said, “the plea now taken by the petitioner, that he was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed to him that the meat was not beef, is a clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.”

In reaching its decision, the High Court referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court in Nikita Jagganath Shetty Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and another.

The judgment given on January 19 said that anticipatory bail is not to be granted lightly and should be reserved for rare situations involving clear and compelling hardship.

Applying this principle, the court said the petitioner had not been able to establish any exceptional circumstances that would justify the grant of pre-arrest bail.

According to the order, no case of extraordinary hardship or deprivation had been demonstrated in his favour.

According to the prosecution, the matter originated from a complaint lodged by a member of a cow vigilante group, who alleged that the accused was transporting and supplying beef on a scooter.

Acting on a tip-off, local residents intercepted the man, after which police recovered around 50 kilograms of meat from the vehicle.

At the initial stage, the petitioner reportedly produced two purchase bills and claimed that the meat was buffalo meat procured from vendors in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.

Samples were subsequently sent to the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad. Experts at the institute opined that the meat was of a “bull” or an “ox”, scientifically identified as bos indicus, which is included under the definition of cow protected under the Act.

The court accepted the prosecution’s submission that custodial questioning of the petitioner was necessary.

It noted that interrogation was required to trace the larger chain allegedly involved, including “where the cows were slaughtered, how their meat is sold, who all are the purchasers, etc.”

The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that it was implausible to suggest that sellers from different states had simultaneously misled the accused.

The explanation, it was submitted, was a belated attempt to escape responsibility after the forensic report went against him.

Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the accused believed he was dealing in buffalo meat and that no further recovery was pending, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

However, counsel representing the complainant countered that the act had deeply offended religious sentiments, given the sacred status of the cow in Hindu belief.

Dismissing the plea, the court said that the petitioner had not made out a case deserving the “extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail,” thereby clearing the way for further investigation in the matter.