‘A clever ploy’: Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects man’s claim of being ‘misled’ into selling 50 kg beef

Findings

•  It would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the top court in Nikita Jagganath Shetty Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and another, wherein it has been held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted routinely.
• Initially, when the petitioner was caught, he produced two bills, taking the plea that he had obtained buffalo meat.
• When the sample was sent to the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad, the experts opined that the meat was that of a “bull” or an “ox”.
• The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is needed to find out who is involved in this incident, where the “cows were slaughtered, how their meat is sold, who all are the purchasers, etc.”
• The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of exceptional depravity/hardship in his favour, entitling him to the grant of this extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Background

• The petitioner filed a plea for the grant of pre-arrest bail in the case under Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), BNS, and Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, added later on.
• The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint filed by a member of the cow vigilante group, who alleged that the petitioner was supplying beef using a scooter.
• Upon acting on this secret tip-off, the complainant and residents intercepted the petitioner, where police subsequently discovered 50 kilograms of meat in the vehicle.
• While the man initially claimed the meat was of buffalo calf, purchased from vendors in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, a forensic analysis conducted by the Hyderabad institute identified the samples as “bos indicus (bull/ox)”.
• Following this report, the police added Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and the petitioner was again served a notice, but he reportedly did not join the investigation.
• Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the high court for anticipatory bail.
• His counsel Advocate Jasbir Singh Dadwal submitted that the petitioner, aged about 62 years, was framed in the case, and he was under the genuine impression that the meat purchased by him was that of a buffalo.
• He further submitted that since nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is not needed.
• Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora argued that the petitioner’s plea that he had purchased the meat under the genuine impression that it was not beef cannot be believed, for it cannot be presumed that both the sellers from Punjab and Uttar Pradesh would mislead the petitioner.
• He further argued that this plea is nothing but a last-minute effort on the part of the petitioner to wriggle out of the embarrassing position in which he has placed himself.
• Counsels for the complainant next contend that “cow” holds a sacred and revered place in the Hindu religion and Indian culture, and the petitioner, by indulging in these acts, has hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.