[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parkash vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026
CRM-M-15075-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
116 CRM-M-15075-2026
Date of decision : 18.03.2026
PARKASH
......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
******
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
1. This petition for pre-arrest bail, is the first petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023'. This petition has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR
No.5 dated 11.01.2026, for the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 299, 281 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3, 4, 4A of the
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955, and Section 12 of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station Khuhi Khera,
District Fazilka.
2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from the record are that the FIR
of this case came into being at the instance of 'Pankaj Swami', hereinafter
being referred to as complainant only. It was stated by the above-named
1 of 6
CRM-M-15075-2026
complainant that he was an active member of a group dedicated for safety of
cows and rescue them from slaughtering. As per complainant in the intervening
night of 09/10 January 2026 their organization received a secret information
that near village Kundal several cows were loaded in a pickup truck and they
were being transported towards Fazilka. According to above-named
complainant in view of above-mentioned information near village
Jhumiyawali, they attempted to intercept the pickup vehicle, but the driver of
the above-mentioned vehicle managed to flee from the spot, and therefore, the
above-said vehicle had to be chased. According to complainant after covering
some distance the pickup driver and his associate abandoned the above-said
vehicle and fled from the spot. The complainant further alleged that when
checked the pickup truck, they found that there were several cows in the truck,
and that the above-mentioned action of the driver and other occupants of the
pickup truck hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindus.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to above-mentioned
complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up.
It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation, it was
found that the pickup truck which was recovered by the complainant's
organization belonged to the brother of the complainant, and that the
complainant and his brother and other accused were involved in transporting
the cows for slaughtering purpose.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr.
Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of
2 of 6
CRM-M-15075-2026
respondent-State. Hence, the service of notice upon the State is hereby
dispensed with.
6. Heard.
7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent, having no nexus, whatsoever with the commission of
crime, and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent,
and that the vehicle in question does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner
has further alleged that in fact his brother is the registered owner of the
vehicle, seized in the present case and he has criminal antecedents also.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner since the brother of petitioner is
absconding, in order to put illegal pressure upon the petitioner, he has been
implicated in the present case on the basis of so-called disclosure statement of
co-accused, which is otherwise inadmissible in evidence. While claiming that
no case against the petitioner is made out, a request for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner has been raised.
8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned
arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case there is
specific allegations with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission
of crime, and that in order to fix the role of the petitioner in the above-
mentioned crime, and also to find out the source from where cows were
procured and where they were supposed to be supplied, custodial interrogation
of the petitioner is necessary.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
3 of 6
CRM-M-15075-2026
10. It is pertinent to mention here 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.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
12. 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.
13. 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:-
4 of 6
CRM-M-15075-2026
(i) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an
extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in
exceptional cases only.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
14. If the factual matrix of the present case, discussed above, is
analyzed in the light of principles of law laid down in the above-mentioned
cases, it transpires that in the present case in order to fix the exact role of
petitioner in the commission of crime, and also to trace out the sources from
where the cows were procured and where they were supposed to be supplied,
including the purpose of supply, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
of utmost necessity.
15 It is also relevant to mention here that right of custodial
interrogation of an accused/suspect is a valuable right of the Investigating
Agency and the denial of such right can be made only in exceptional
circumstances. However, the factual matrix of the present case shows that no
such exceptional circumstance exists in the present case.
16. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the entire
discussion contained in the forgoing paragraphs, it is hereby observed that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the present case is necessary, and
5 of 6
CRM-M-15075-2026
that he is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, finding no
merit, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
18.03.2026
vipin Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
