Introduction:

In a decision reflecting strict judicial scrutiny of offences involving prohibited cattle slaughter and illegal meat trade, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by a 62-year-old accused booked for allegedly supplying nearly 50 kilograms of beef in violation of statutory prohibitions. The petition was heard and decided by Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, who declined to grant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger chain involved in illegal slaughter and sale of cow meat. The petitioner had approached the Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection from arrest in connection with an FIR registered in Chandigarh. Initially, the case was registered under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and subsequently, Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 was added after forensic confirmation of the nature of the meat. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Amit Sharma, President of Gau Raksha Dal, who alleged that the petitioner was transporting beef on a two-wheeler. Acting on this information, the complainant and others reached the spot where the petitioner was allegedly found standing near an Activa scooter, from which about 50 kilograms of suspected beef was recovered. At the spot, the petitioner claimed that the meat was buffalo meat and produced two purchase bills purportedly issued by vendors from Malerkotla in Punjab and Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh. However, samples were seized and sent to the National Meat Research Institute, Chengicherla, Hyderabad, and the forensic report identified the meat as Bos indicus, that is, bull or ox. Following this, the offence under the Cow Slaughter Act was added, and the petitioner, who had earlier been granted bail for the offence under the BNS, allegedly failed to join the investigation after issuance of notice. Against this factual backdrop, the High Court was called upon to determine whether anticipatory bail could be granted in a case involving serious statutory violation, alleged organised illegal trade, and potential communal sensitivity.

Arguments:

The petitioner, through counsel, contended that he had been falsely implicated and had no intention or knowledge of supplying prohibited meat. It was argued that he had purchased the meat under the bona fide belief that it was buffalo meat, relying on the representations made by the sellers from whom he had procured it. The petitioner sought to portray himself as a mere purchaser and transporter, lacking criminal intent, and claimed that he had been misled by the vendors regarding the nature of the meat. Emphasis was placed on the fact that he had produced purchase bills at the spot, which, according to him, demonstrated transparency and absence of mens rea. The defence also suggested that certain local individuals were extorting money from street vendors and small traders, and that the petitioner had been falsely implicated after he refused to comply with such illegal demands. It was further argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the material evidence, including the seized meat and forensic report, was already in the possession of the investigating agency, and that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation if protected from arrest. The petitioner also relied on his age and asserted that incarceration at this stage would be harsh and disproportionate, particularly when the prosecution had not yet established his direct involvement in any organised slaughter activity.

On the other hand, the prosecution, supported by counsel for the complainant, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and argued that the defence taken by the petitioner was not only implausible but also a clear afterthought. It was contended that the claim of being misled by sellers could not be accepted at face value, especially when the meat was allegedly sourced from two different locations, which indicated organised procurement rather than accidental purchase. The prosecution submitted that offences under the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act carry serious social and communal implications, as the cow occupies a sacred position in Hindu religious belief, and illegal slaughter or trade in cow meat has the potential to disturb public harmony. It was argued that such offences are rarely isolated acts and often form part of larger supply chains involving illegal slaughter, transport, storage, and distribution, which cannot be unearthed without custodial interrogation of persons found in possession of prohibited meat. The State further pointed out that after the addition of the Cow Slaughter Act offence, the petitioner failed to join investigation despite issuance of notice, which reflected lack of cooperation and justified apprehension that he might evade or obstruct further inquiry. Relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the decision in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, it was argued that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially in cases involving serious economic or organised offences where investigation is still at a critical stage. The prosecution thus urged the Court to reject the plea in the interest of effective investigation and public order.

Judgment:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant anticipatory bail, holding that no exceptional circumstances were made out to justify the exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney first noted the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory framework governing offences related to cow slaughter and sale of cow meat. The Court took cognizance of the forensic report from the National Meat Research Institute, which categorically identified the seized meat as Bos indicus, that is, bull or ox, thereby confirming the applicability of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act. In light of this scientific evidence, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he had been misled by the sellers into believing that the meat was buffalo meat, describing this explanation as a “clever ploy and an afterthought” that did not deserve acceptance. The Court observed that once the forensic report established the prohibited nature of the meat, the petitioner’s attempt to shift blame entirely onto the sellers could not absolve him of criminal responsibility at the stage of investigation.

The Court further held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the entire chain of illegal slaughter and sale, including identification of suppliers, slaughterhouses, transport routes, and potential beneficiaries. It emphasized that such offences are seldom isolated and usually involve coordinated activities across districts and states, making custodial interrogation a legitimate investigative necessity rather than a punitive measure. The Court also took into account that the petitioner had allegedly failed to join the investigation after the addition of serious statutory charges, which weighed against granting him pre-arrest protection.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional cases, the High Court reiterated that courts must be cautious while granting such relief in matters involving organised or socially sensitive offences. The Court highlighted that the gravity of the offence, the potential communal ramifications, and the need to uncover the larger network outweighed considerations of age or personal inconvenience of the accused. It clarified that while personal liberty is an important constitutional value, it must be balanced against the interests of effective investigation and societal order.

The Court also rejected the contention that since physical evidence had already been seized, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. It held that investigation in such cases is not confined to seizure of contraband but extends to tracing the source, distribution network, financial transactions, and involvement of multiple actors, which often requires sustained questioning in custody. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the accused to seek regular bail at an appropriate stage after arrest and further progress of investigation.