IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 CRM-M-39882-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.09.2025. Anish ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR ....... Present: Mr. Sarfaraj Anjum Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, DAG, Haryana. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.35 dated 04.03.2025, under Sections 8, 13(3), 3, 13(1), 17 of HGS & GS Act, Section 317(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka, District Nuh. As per prosecution case, on 04.03.2025, the police party after receiving information proceeded to the place disclosed by the informant and met one Chotu Yadav, who disclosed that Aslam along with other companions, after slaughtering cows had transported the 100 kg beef for selling the same. The police found Aslam in injured condition who stated that when he was coming to his village, 4-5 persons stopped his motorcycle and had beaten him. On search, one motorcycle without number, 100 Kg. beef were recovered, which was taken into police possession. Hence, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner and others. KOMAL 2025.09.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-39882-2025 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and he is not connected with the offence in the present case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Aslam, which is not admissible in law. He has further contended that co-accused Aslam has already been granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the trial Court. He prayed that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready and willing to join the investigation and the present petition be allowed. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition while contending that the petitioner had committed a serious crime of cow slaughtering and as such he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Heard. As per the allegations, the name of the petitioner surfaced in the present case, only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Aslam. Except the disclosure statement, there is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the offence in question. Recovery has already been effected in the present case and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Co-accused Aslam has already been granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the trial Court. As per status report, no other criminal case has been found to be registered against the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. KOMAL 2025.09.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document CRM-M-39882-2025 (O&M) -3- Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard and he shall abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE 22.09.2025. Komal Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/ No Whether reportable? : Yes/ No KOMAL 2025.09.22 17:36 I attest to the accuracy of this document