BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 02.03.2025, registered at Police Station Pehowa (wrongly mentioned as Sadar Pehowa in the impugned order Annexure P Kurukshetra, under Section Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act, 2015. 2. custody for not the owner of the canter and was only engaged as a driver. nothing to connect him with the alleged recovery. framed on 23.01.2026, however none out of 9 PWs has been examined. He is not involved in any other case. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 02.03.2025, registered at Police Station Pehowa (wrongly mentioned as Sadar Pehowa in the impugned order Annexure P urukshetra, under Section 13(1), 13(2) and 13(3) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act, 2015. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year and about 1 month. He alleges false implication. not the owner of the canter and was only engaged as a driver. nothing to connect him with the alleged recovery. framed on 23.01.2026, however none out of 9 PWs has been examined. He is not involved in any other case. the present petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.63 dated 02.03.2025, registered at Police Station Pehowa (wrongly mentioned as Sadar Pehowa in the impugned order Annexure P-2), District 13(1), 13(2) and 13(3) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gau Samvardhan Act, 2015. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in He alleges false implication. He is not the owner of the canter and was only engaged as a driver. There is nothing to connect him with the alleged recovery. Charges have been framed on 23.01.2026, however none out of 9 PWs has been examined. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.19 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that recovery of 14 cows and 5 bulls, purportedly meant for slaughter, was effected from the canter driven by the petitioner. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner being not involved in any other case. 4. Heard. 5. prosecution evidence has to commence; in all there are 9 PWs; 6. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.19 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 7. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 8. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.19 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.