Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case

“Plea That Seller Misled Accused Is A Clever Ploy And An Afterthought”,  Punjab & Haryana High Court emphatically refused to grant anticipatory bail to Noor Mohammad, who is facing allegations of possessing and distributing beef in violation of Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, while dismissing the pre-arrest bail plea filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, called attention to the “serious impact of such offences on religious sentiments and communal peace” and held that the petitioner failed to make out any exceptional ground warranting protection from arrest.

In a sharply worded observation, the Court underlined that “Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner,” quoting the recent Supreme Court judgment in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025 AIR SC 3375).

“Custodial Interrogation Is Essential To Uncover Where The Cows Are Slaughtered, How The Meat Is Sold, And Who All Are Involved”: Justice Aaradhna Sawhney

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, following a complaint by Amit Sharma, President of Gau Raksha Dal. Acting on a tip-off, Sharma alleged that Noor Mohammad was supplying beef in Sector 45-C on a two-wheeler, which was subsequently found parked near the shop 'Sahib Traders' with approximately 50 kilograms of meat. On being confronted, Noor Mohammad produced two bills claiming the meat was buffalo, purchased from vendors in Malerkotla (Punjab) and Saharanpur (U.P.).

Initially, only Section 299 BNS was invoked, and the petitioner was granted bail. However, once the meat sample was sent to the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad, forensic results confirmed the sample as "Bos indicus (Bull/Ox)", leading to the addition of Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

The Court took note of the petitioner’s failure to join investigation after receiving notice under the revised charges. Dismissing the defence that he had been misled by the sellers, Justice Sawhney stated:

“It cannot be presumed that both sellers from Malerkotla and Saharanpur would mislead the petitioner. The plea that he was misinformed is nothing but a clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.”

Religious Sensitivity and Communal Harmony Weighed Heavily Against Bail

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that no recovery was left and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the Court noted that the matter extended far beyond mere possession. It observed:

“The petitioner belongs to a gang of persons who are habitual of selling beef. If not checked, the misdeeds on the part of the petitioner can pose a threat to public order and communal harmony.”

Highlighting the cultural and religious relevance, Justice Sawhney further remarked:

“Cow holds a sacred and revered place in the Hindu religion and Indian culture. The petitioner, by indulging in these acts, has hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.”

The Court emphasized that the crime alleged was not an isolated act but possibly part of an organised network that required a thorough probe, stating:

“The custodial interrogation of the 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.”

Court Rejects Personal Vendetta Allegations

The petitioner also claimed he was being targeted by local extortionists and had been falsely implicated for refusing to pay illegal money. This claim, however, was brushed aside by the Court as “unsubstantiated” and irrelevant at this stage, particularly given the forensic findings and gravity of the allegations.

Concluding that no case of “exceptional hardship or deprivation” had been made out, the Court dismissed the petition, thereby reinforcing the principle that public interest and investigative efficacy must take precedence over personal convenience in such serious offences.

“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.”

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026