1 CGHC010339332026 2026:CGHC:39063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.8250 of 2026 1 - Ajayak Ekka Son Of Johan Ekka, Aged About 35 Years Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Sushil Kujur Son Of Gabriel Kujur, Aged About 28 Years Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Pramod Ekka Son Of Linus Ekka Aged About 30 Years Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Agastus Tirki Son Of Hinrik Tirki Aged About 34 Years Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Sanjay Tirki Son Of Marshel Tirki, Aged About 40 Years Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - Habil Ekka Son Of Sundar Sai Aged About 27 Years Residing Of Haldijhariya Dadpani PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicants SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.05 10:55:43 +0530 2 versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bagbahar District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 03.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the Applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.61/2026 registered at Police Station Bagbahar, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 4, 5, 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. 2. As per the prosecution, complainant Khemanidhi Yadav reported that on 30.06.2026 at about 8:00 p.m., while he was standing outside his house along with his brother Dhanurjay, he noticed four persons, two of whom were travelling on separate motorcycles and two were walking, hurriedly driving a cow from Barkhoria towards Mudabahala-Karrajor. Upon being questioned, one of them stated that they were from 3 Karrajor and had purchased the cow from Tulsi Chauhan. The complainant thereafter went to the house of Tulsi Chauhan and on enquiry, she stated that Applicant No.1 of Mudabahala-Karrajor had come along with three persons and a child and stating that they wanted to purchase a cow for feeding milk to the child, had purchased the cow from her. Suspecting the manner in which the cow was being hurriedly driven away, the complainant, along with Dhanurjay Yadav, Fagu Chauhan, Narad Manjhi, Vimal @ Nirmal Manjhi, Bajrang Manjhi, Ravipal, Ashish and Shashi Chauhan, went in search of the persons. On noticing several torch lights towards the fields, they proceeded there, whereupon, on seeing them approaching, the persons present fled from the spot. Upon entering the pit, they found the hide of a cow, its severed head with both horns removed, both ears bearing identification tag No.102220038791, all four severed legs with hooves, fresh cow dung and blood scattered around the spot, along with a wooden block having pieces of flesh stuck to it. On verification of the identification tag number, the cow was found to belong to Tulsi Chauhan of Barkhoria, from whom it had been purchased by Applicant No.1 of Mudabahala- Karrajor along with all other Applicants. Based on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above, have been 4 registered against the present Applicants. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no direct allegation that any of the Applicants was seen slaughtering the cow, removing its hide, cutting its body parts or using any weapon or implement in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place at about 8:00 p.m. during night hours and as per the prosecution itself, the persons present at the spot fled upon seeing torch lights, making the identification of any particular accused doubtful. It is further submitted that no incriminating article or animal remains have been recovered from the possession of the Applicants and the alleged recovery of the animal remains, plastic bag, wooden block and other articles has been made from an open and accessible field, which cannot be connected to the Applicants through any independent evidence so as to establish their exclusive possession, knowledge or participation. It is further submitted that even as per the prosecution case, the cow was purchased from Tulsi Chauhan for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and mere purchase or transportation of the cow, by itself, does not 5 establish that the same was being transported for the purpose of slaughter or with the requisite knowledge that it was likely to be slaughtered, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. It is also submitted that there is no prima facie material establishing that the recovered material was “beef” or that the Applicants had committed or participated in any act prohibited under Sections 4 or 5 of the said Act, thus, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie made out against the Applicants. It is lastly submitted that Applicants No.1 to 4 are in custody since 04.07.2026 and Applicants No.5 and 6 are in custody since 30.07.2026, the trial is likely to take quite some time for its conclusion, therefore, they may be released on bail. 4. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the Applicants are serious in nature and the material collected during investigation prima facie connects them with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material available on record, the Applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 6 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary carefully. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the material available in the case diary, the fact that the Applicants are in custody since 04.07.2026 and 30.07.2026 respectively, the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed and further considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicants is allowed and it is directed that they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to the following conditions :- (i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant/s shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel. In case 7 of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant/s shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant/s is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Priya