Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Man's Claim Of Being Misled Into Selling 50 Kg Beef, Declines Pre-Arrest Bails

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by a 62-years-old booked for allegedly supplying 50-kg-beef in violation of statutory prohibitions, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger network involved in the illegal trade.

Justice Aaradhna Sawhney rejected the plea taken by the petitioner was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed him that the meat was not Beef is clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered in Chandigarh. The petitioner was booked initially under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 being added subsequently.

The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Amit Sharma, President of Gau Raksha Dal, who alleged that the petitioner was supplying beef on a two-wheeler. Acting on information, the complainant and others reached the spot where the petitioner was found standing near an Activa scooter. On inspection, about 50 kg of suspected beef was allegedly recovered from the vehicle.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner claimed at the spot that the meat was buffalo meat and produced two bills issued by vendors from Malerkotla (Punjab) and Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh). The police seized samples of the meat and sent them to the National Meat Research Institute, Chengicherla, Hyderabad. As per the forensic report, the meat was identified as Bos indicus (bull/ox).

Following the forensic opinion, Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act was added to the FIR. The petitioner, who was initially granted bail for the offence under the BNS, allegedly failed to join the investigation after issuance of notice.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and had purchased the meat under the bona fide belief that it was buffalo meat, relying on the representations made by the sellers. It was also alleged that certain local individuals were extorting money from street vendors and had falsely implicated him after he refused to pay.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the defence taken by the petitioner was an afterthought and implausible, especially since the meat was sourced from two different places. It was contended that the offence had serious communal ramifications, as the cow holds a sacred position in Hindu religion.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025 AIR SC 3375), reiterating that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted routinely.

Taking note of the forensic report confirming that the seized meat was of bull/ox, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of being misled by the sellers, terming it a “clever ploy and an afterthought”. The Court held that custodial interrogation was required to uncover the entire chain involved in the illegal slaughter and sale of cow meat.

Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. Jasbir Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-UT, Chandigarh.

Mr. Devinder Rajput, Advocate and Mr. Sushant Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: NOOR MOHAMMAD v. STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH

Click here to read order