In a significant ruling concerning the illegal trade of cow meat, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 62-year-old man caught with 50 kilograms of beef. The Court categorically rejected the petitioner's defense that he was "misled" by sellers into believing the meat was buffalo, terming such claims a "clever ploy" designed to escape the clutches of the law.

Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, presiding over the case, emphasized that custodial interrogation is essential in such matters to dismantle the larger networks involved in the illegal slaughter and distribution of prohibited meat.

The legal proceedings originated from an FIR registered in Chandigarh following a complaint by Amit Sharma, President of the Gau Raksha Dal. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, Noor Mohammad, was intercepted while allegedly transporting a substantial quantity of meat on his two-wheeler (an Activa scooter).

Upon inspection, authorities recovered approximately 50 kg of meat suspected to be beef. At the time of the seizure, Mohammad maintained that the meat was buffalo meat and even produced two purchase bills—one from a vendor in Malerkotla, Punjab, and another from Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

Initially, the petitioner was booked under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. However, the gravity of the case shifted significantly following forensic analysis.

To verify the nature of the seized meat, the police sent samples to the National Meat Research Institute in Chengicherla, Hyderabad. The forensic report returned a definitive finding: the samples were identified as Bos indicus (bull/ox).

Based on this scientific evidence, the police added Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, to the FIR. While the petitioner had initially been granted bail for the BNS offense, he allegedly failed to join the investigation once the more serious charges under the Cow Slaughter Act were added.

The Petitioner’s Defense: Represented by Advocate Jasbir Singh Dadwal, the petitioner sought protection from arrest under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The primary arguments raised were:

Bona Fide Belief: The petitioner claimed he was a victim of deception, asserting he purchased the meat under the genuine belief that it was buffalo meat, based on the representations made by the sellers in Malerkotla and Saharanpur.
False Implication: He alleged that local individuals were running an extortion racket targeting street vendors and had falsely implicated him because he refused to pay "protection money."
Age and Cooperation: The defense highlighted his age (62 years) and argued that he was being targeted unfairly.

The Prosecution’s Stand: Opposing the bail, Mr. Rahul Arora, Additional Public Prosecutor for the UT Chandigarh, along with counsel for the complainant, argued:

Implausibility: The prosecution contended that it was highly unlikely for a person to be "misled" by two different vendors in two different states (Punjab and UP) simultaneously.
Communal Sensitivity: They argued that the cow holds a sacred position in the Hindu religion and that such offenses have the potential to cause serious communal disharmony.
Need for Interrogation: They stressed that the petitioner was merely a link in a chain, and his custodial interrogation was vital to identify the slaughterhouses and distributors involved in the illegal trade.

Justice Sawhney, after hearing both sides, delivered a stern observation regarding the petitioner’s "innocent buyer" defense. The Court noted that the forensic report left no room for doubt regarding the nature of the meat.

On the ‘Misled’ Claim: The Court described the petitioner’s claim of being misled as a "clever ploy and an afterthought." It held that such a defense did not deserve serious consideration given the facts of the recovery. The Court noted that the petitioner was caught red-handed with a significant quantity (50 kg), which suggested a commercial intent rather than a minor error.

On Anticipatory Bail Principles: The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025). The apex court had reiterated that:

Anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary remedy."
It should not be granted as a matter of routine.
The court must balance the liberty of the individual against the need for a fair and effective investigation.

The Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: The Court held that the "illegal slaughter and sale of cow meat" is a coordinated activity. To find out where the 50 kg of meat came from and who else was involved in the supply chain, the police required the petitioner in custody. The Court observed that "exceptional circumstances" required for granting pre-arrest bail were completely absent in this case.

Finding the allegations grave and the evidence compelling, the Court dismissed the petition. The ruling sends a clear message that the judiciary will take a strict view of the violation of cow slaughter prohibitions, especially when forensic evidence contradicts the defense of the accused.

The dismissal of the bail plea means the Chandigarh police are now free to take the petitioner into custody to further their investigation into the illegal meat trade network operating across state lines.

Case Details:

Case Title: Noor Mohammad v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Bench: Justice Aaradhna Sawhney
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Jasbir Singh Dadwal
Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Rahul Arora (Addl. PP for UT Chandigarh)
Complainant’s Counsel: Mr. Devinder Rajput and Mr. Sushant Gupta