AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.238 dated 17.07.2026, registered under Sections 3, 13(1), 8, 13(3) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023/34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged recovery was not effected from the personal or conscious possession of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not present at the spot. He further submits that the identification of the petitioner rests solely on the information of an unnamed secret informer, whose identity has neither been disclosed nor verified. He further argues that no independent public witness was associated with the raid despite the raid taking place in an inhabited village. He further submits that there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner to crime. He further submits that that nothing further remains to be recovered from the petitioner, as the entire case property already stands seized; and that the petitioner is permanent resident of the area with roots in society and no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. He further submits that he is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency as and when called upon to do so.
Opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail, learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that the raid was conducted on specific and credible secret information which stood corroborated by the recovery of 42 kg of freshly slaughtered beef along with slaughtering weapons from the exact spot disclosed by the informer. He further submits that the conduct of the petitioner in fleeing upon seeing the police raiding party is itself an incriminating circumstance. He further submits that the informer's information that the petitioners were "today also" engaged in the said activity indicates an organized and continuing illegal business. He further submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage; and that offences of this nature, being of a sensitive nature affecting public order, warrant custodial scrutiny and denial of bail, particularly in view of the risk of the petitioner absconding as already demonstrated and also the arrest of co-accused is yet to be effected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their assistance.
It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
"6.We find, force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
Coming to the facts of the present case, on 17.07.2026, SI Subhash Chander along with other police officials was present at village Salamba for crime patrol duty, when on secret information regarding cow slaughter and sale of beef by the petitioner, a raid was conducted. On seeing the police, the petitioner fled from the spot. 42 kg of freshly slaughtered beef, along with slaughtering implements i.e., two knives, one axe, one wooden log, one electronic weighing machine, and one steel pot (parat) were recovered from the spot and taken into police custody vide separate recovery memo. The investigation is presently at a nascent stage. The source from which the cattle were procured, their intended destination, and the identity and role of other persons connected with the alleged offence are matters which still require thorough investigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to enable the investigating agency to trace the larger network and ascertain the full extent of the alleged criminal activity. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would not be conducive to a free, fair and effective investigation.
Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.