AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral):
This petition for pre-arrest bail is first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.7 dated 10.01.2026, Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, for the commission of offence under Sections 13(3)/3 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and 317(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘SI Jamshed Ali’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 09.01.2026 at about 10.00 P.M when he along with other police officials was performing paroling duty, on the basis of a tip-off given by a reliable source two persons riding on two separate motorcycles were intercepted and one of them managed to escape, while leaving his motorcycle on the spot, whereas the second one was apprehended and from his possession 120 Kg. of cow meat and camel meat was recovered. It was further reported by the above named police officer that from the motorcycle abandoned by another person 100 KG of cow and camel meat was recovered and the person so apprehended disclosed his named as ‘Sohail’.
According to above named police officer pursuant to recovery of above mentioned meat requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of meat, registration of FIR and formal arrest of accused were completed and further investigation taken up. As per above named police officer on interrogation accused ‘Sohail’ suffered a disclosure statement, wherein he disclosed the identity of the person who had fled from the spot as ‘Ukaseem’. It is case of the prosecution that pursuant to above mentioned disclosure statement ‘Ukaseem’ was arrested and when he was interrogated he suffered a disclosure statement wherein he revealed that the meat was supplied to him by the present petitioner.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime, and that without any evidence he is being implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the present case except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no evidence against the petitioner, and that even accused ‘Ukaseem’ was arrested by the police after six months of the alleged incident. While claiming that the petitioner has clean antecedents and nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner the benefit of bail for the petitioner has been sought.
The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case there are allegation against the petitioner that he had supplied cow meat and camel meat to the main accused, and thus, there is a very serious doubt that the petitioner was responsible for slaughtering of cow as well as camel. According to the learned State counsel in order to fix role of the petitioner in the commission of offence, and also to recover the instruments used for slaughtering of cows, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
The record has been perused carefully.
In the present case, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is seeking extraordinary remedy by claiming the benefit of anticipatory bail. With regard to such relief, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar’, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, has observed that power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot; by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned case has further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation.
Similarly, in the case of ‘Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and another’, (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.
In the case of ‘Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab’ 1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.
In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
In the light of the above mentioned principles of law if the factual matrix of the present case is analysed, it transpires that in the present case there are allegations against the petitioner that probably he was responsible for slaughtering of cows. The investigation qua petitioner is at initial stage, and in order to fix role of the petitioner in the commission of offence, his custodial interrogation is of paramount importance. In the instant case if the above mentioned opportunity is denied to the investigating agency, the investigation of this case may suffer a serious set-back, which may result into miscarriage of justice.
It is also relevant to mention here that right of custodial interrogation of accused is a valuable right of the investigating agency and as per settled principles of law in ordinary circumstances such right should not be curtailed.
If the factual matrix of the present case is analysed in the light of above mentioned principles of law, it transpires that no such circumstances exists which may lead to a conclusion that there is need for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
Taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, allegations with regard to direct involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime and other mitigating circumstances, it is hereby held that in the instant case no ground exists, wherein the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court, by virtue of Section 482 of BNSS, should be exercised and the benefit of anticipatory bail should be accorded to the petitioner.
As a sequel to above mentioned discussion, it is hereby held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Thus finding no merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed accordingly.
However, it is made clear that any observations recorded in the present case, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.