Haryana's Anti-Cow Slaughter Law Meant To Curb Beef Consumption But Alarming Rise In Litigation Shows State Is Not Executing It Properly: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has expressed concern about increasing litigation under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, observing that the objective of the Act was to curtail the "consumption of beef menace emanating from the powerful meat lobby consuming and selling beef" but State is not executing properly.The Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the accused who was apprehending arrest for allegedly being the owner the pick up vehicle used for carrying the cows for slaughtering.Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The prime objective of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015 is to curtail the cow slaughtering, consumption of beef menace emanating from powerful meat lobby consuming and selling beef for their own satiation. But the alarming situation with the increase in such litigations apparently shows that the State is not executed properly in its true spirit."The petitioner Khalid had filed the anticipatory bail plea under sections 148, 149, 186,429,307 of IPC and Sections 13(2), 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015 and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, registered at Faridabad's Dhauj.Counsel for the petitioner argued that Khalid is falsely implicated in the FIR and he has been roped in the instant case only on the basis of disclosure statements of co- accused namely Sakir and Sabir stating that the petitioner was driving pick up.It was also asserted that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot added with the fact that nothing is to be recovered from his custody. Opposing the bail, the state counsel submitted that the name of the petitioner has been surfaced in the disclosure statement of co-accused besides he is owner of the pick up vehicle used for the commission of the offence. Thus, his custodial interrogation is required to unearth his role and also, recovery of weapon is yet to be effected.After examining the submissions, the Court opined that the mere fact that the petitioner was not found on the spot would not vest a right upon the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail more particularly when there are other relevant factors which deserve consideration.“Be that as it may, as has been culled out from the facts of the present case that the petitioner has been roped in the instant FIR on the basis of the disclosure statement of co accused for having driving the pick up vehicle which is indeed registered in his name. Moreso, there are serious allegation against the petitioner of actively participating in the offence,” observed Justice Moudgil .Adding that it is necessary to bring the offenders to the book for which, the Courts should refrain from taking a lenient view, the Court said “first and the foremost thing for the court hearing anticipatory bail is to consider the gravity of offence and the prima facie case against the accused.”In the light of the above the plea was rejected.Mr. N.A Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner.Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.Title: Khalid v State of Haryana Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 12

Haryana's Anti-Cow Slaughter Law Meant To Curb Beef Consumption But Alarming Rise In Litigation Shows State Is Not Executing It Properly: High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags