The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the offence of cow slaughter is not only a legal issue but also one laden with emotional and cultural significance, given the cow’s unique status in Indian society [Aasif v. State of Haryana].
Justice Sandeep Moudgil made the remarks while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of Aasif, who was accused of transporting two cows to Rajasthan for slaughter in violation of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged actions reflected a conscious defiance of law and disregard for community sentiments. “The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group,” the Court remarked.
The Court further observed that Aasif was not a first-time offender. He was allegedly involved in three previous cases of similar nature, where he had been granted bail. However, the Court noted that this judicial leniency was misused. “It is evident from the material on record that the petitioner is not a first-time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences. In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected,” the Court said.
Clarifying the scope of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court stressed that such protection is not intended for habitual offenders. “Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity,” Justice Moudgil observed.
The Court added that bail jurisprudence requires courts to exercise caution to balance the protection of personal liberty with the need to preserve justice, social order, and equilibrium. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the Court noted that there was a strong likelihood of the petitioner continuing similar unlawful activities or interfering with the investigation.
Concluding that the petitioner was “a habitual offender” accused of offences involving moral turpitude, the Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea.
Picture Source :
