Observing that having a mere criminal antecedent would not be definitive proof of guilt, the Supreme Court recently granted bail to a man who had five similar criminal antecedents and was accused of procuring 23 kg of cow meat and storing it in an open plot for retail sale purposes.

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal filed by Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol, who had been arrested on January 3, 2026, and remained in custody for more than eight months.

The appellant was booked under Sections 5(1), 6(b), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011, Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The prosecution alleged that he had illegally procured 23 kg of cow meat, transported it in a Swift car, and stored it in an open plot near his house for retail sale. It was further alleged that he fled from the spot after the police conducted a raid.

Opposing bail, the State submitted that the trial was at its final stage and would be concluded within two months. It also pointed out that the appellant had five criminal antecedents involving similar allegations and argued that he was likely to indulge in similar activities if released.

The appellant, however, contended that the prosecution case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and presumptions. His counsel submitted that he had not been arrested at the spot, the meat had been recovered from an open plot accessible to everyone, and the plot did not belong to him. It was also argued that the Swift car allegedly used for transporting the meat was not owned by the appellant.

Finding that the appellant's continued incarceration was not warranted, the Court noted that the alleged meat had been recovered from an open plot near his house, the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial had already commenced.

Moreover, rejecting the state's contention about the criminal antecedents of the accused having allegations of similar nature, the Court said that the benefit of bail cannot be denied merely because of the appellant's antecedents.

“Merely because the appellant's antecedents are there, would not be definitive proof of guilt in the present case. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits we are of the considered view that appellant is entitled for being released on regular bail.”, the Court said.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nadeem B. Mansuri, Adv. Mr. Minhajuddin Moinuddin Shaikh- 4132, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Swati Ghildiyal- 3169, AOR Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Suresh, Adv.