High Court Dismisses 'Misled' Defense in Beef Possession Case as 'Clever Ploy'
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly rejected a 62-year-old man's anticipatory bail plea, labeling his claim of being "misled" by meat suppliers into possessing 50 kilograms of beef as a "clever ploy" to avoid prosecution. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation is essential to unravel the broader network behind the illegal meat trade.
Court's Stern Observations on the Bail Plea
Justice Aradhana Sawhney, while hearing the plea, stated that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship warranting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The case was registered under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, which penalizes violations of the act's provisions, including acts intended to outrage religious sentiments.
"The plea now taken by the petitioner, that he was misled by the sellers, who had allegedly disclosed to him that the meat was not beef, is a clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of," the court remarked in its January 19 order.
Forensic Evidence and Initial Claims
The petitioner initially produced two bills, asserting that he had purchased buffalo meat. However, when samples were sent to the National Meat Research Institute in Hyderabad, forensic experts concluded that the meat was from a "bull" or an "ox" (bos indicus). This revelation led police to add Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act to the charges.
The court highlighted that custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate:
- Who is involved in the incident
- Where the cows were slaughtered
- How the meat is sold
- Who the purchasers are
Legal Arguments and Religious Sentiments
The petitioner's counsel, advocate Jasbir Singh Dadwal, argued that the 62-year-old was framed and genuinely believed the meat was buffalo. He contended that since nothing needed recovery, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
In contrast, Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora argued that the petitioner's claim was unbelievable, as it was improbable that sellers from both Punjab and Uttar Pradesh would mislead him. He described it as a last-minute effort to escape an embarrassing situation.
Counsels for the complainant further emphasized that the cow holds a sacred and revered place in Hindu religion and Indian culture, and the petitioner's actions had hurt religious sentiments.
Background of the Case
The criminal proceedings originated from a complaint by a cow vigilante group member, alleging the petitioner was supplying beef via scooter. Acting on a tip-off, the complainant and residents intercepted the petitioner, leading police to discover 50 kilograms of meat in the vehicle.
After the forensic report identified the meat as beef, the petitioner was served a notice but did not join the investigation. Apprehending arrest, he moved the high court for anticipatory bail under Section 299 of the BNS (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings) and Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act.
The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Nikita Jagganath Shetty Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra, reiterating that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy not to be granted routinely.
