This oral order dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cow slaughter case, citing serious allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation despite petitioners not being named in the initial FIR.
The petition for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed being devoid of any merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-17803 of 2013(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-17803 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2013
Ahmed and others
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.290, dated 11.12.2012, under Sections 3/8, 5/8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, as applicable to Haryana read with Section 2 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 registered at Police Station Ferzoepur Jhirka, District Mewat.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioners-accused are that on the basis of secret information co-accused Sattar and Sahabu were arrested and huge quantity of beef and 22 cow skins were recovered from their possession. There was secret information that they alongwith 7-8 persons while armed with knife and axe were indulging in cow slaughtering. However, petitioners and some other persons succeeded in running away. On interrogation, co-accused Sattar and Sahabu named the present petitioners-accused.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionersaccused that they were not named in the FIR and they are being falsely implicated in this case just on the statement of co-accused.
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-17803 of 2013(O&M)
However, there are serious allegations against petitionersaccused. Seven-eight persons including petitioners-accused succeeded in running away on seeing the police party. They were indulging in the act of cow slaughtering. They have been named by co-accused. Hence, custodial interrogation of petitioners-accused is necessary to unearth the whole racket of the persons indulging in the illegal act of cow slaughtering.
Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionersAhmed, Ibrahim and Hamid for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
27.5.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners falsely implicated based on co-accused statements in a cow slaughter case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ahmed and others
State of Haryana
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
