Man Caught with 50 kg Beef Denied Anticipatory Bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects ‘Buffalo Meat’ Defence
Introduction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a 62-year-old man accused of transporting cow meat, holding that his claim of being misled into believing it was buffalo meat was a “clever ploy and an afterthought”. The judgment reinforces the strict approach adopted by courts in offences involving cow slaughter laws, anticipatory bail jurisprudence, and public order concerns linked to religious sentiment.
Factual Background of the Case
The case pertains to Noor Mohammad, a resident of Burail, Chandigarh. On July 19, 2025, the police recovered 50 kilograms of meat from a two-wheeler allegedly being transported by the accused in Sector 45C, Burail.
The recovery followed a complaint by members of a Gau Raksha Dal, after which the police intercepted the vehicle and seized the meat.
At the time of interception, the accused claimed that the meat was buffalo meat (buff) and produced two purchase bills issued by sellers based in Malerkotla (Punjab) and Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh).
Forensic Evidence and Change in Charges
The seized meat samples were sent for forensic examination to the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad. The laboratory report identified the samples as Bos indicus (Bull/Ox) — legally recognised as cow meat (beef).
Following the forensic confirmation:
Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 was added to the FIR.
The accused was initially booked under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Although Noor Mohammad had not yet been arrested, he approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as applicable through transitional provisions).
Defence Argument Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner contended that:
Noor Mohammad was under a “genuine impression” that he had purchased buffalo meat.
The sellers had allegedly not disclosed that the meat was beef.
The petitioner was a law-abiding citizen willing to cooperate with the investigation.
He was being falsely implicated at the instance of local individuals allegedly involved in extortion from street vendors.
High Court’s Findings and Observations
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney rejected the defence in strong terms.
The court observed that the plea of being misled by sellers was:
“Nothing but a clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.”
The court found it implausible that sellers from two different locations in two different States would both simultaneously misrepresent the nature of the meat.
The judge further described the argument as:
“A last-minute effort on the part of the petitioner to wriggle out of the embarrassing position in which he has placed himself.”
Statutory Framework Involved
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955
Section 8 criminalises the slaughter, sale, transport, and possession of cow meat.
The Act reflects the State’s policy to protect cows, recognising their religious and cultural significance.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 299 penalises deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens.
The court noted that offences under these provisions are not merely technical violations but carry serious public order implications.
Constitutional Dimensions
Article 25 – Freedom of Religion
While the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, courts have consistently held that reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of public order, morality, and health.
Cow slaughter prohibitions have repeatedly been upheld as constitutionally valid restrictions under Article 25.
Article 21 – Personal Liberty
The right to personal liberty is not absolute. The court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right, and liberty must be balanced against the interest of investigation and societal harmony.
Anticipatory Bail as an Exceptional Remedy
Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court reiterated that:
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and exceptional relief
It should not be granted as a matter of routine
The accused must demonstrate exceptional circumstances, undue hardship, or mala fide prosecution
Justice Sawhney held that Noor Mohammad failed to satisfy these requirements.
Public Order and Communal Harmony Concerns
The court accepted the prosecution’s submission that:
The cow holds a sacred and revered place in Indian society
Illegal transport and sale of cow meat can hurt religious sentiments
Such acts, if unchecked, can pose a serious threat to communal harmony and public order
On this basis, the court found custodial interrogation necessary to uncover:
Possible slaughter locations
The supply chain
Other individuals involved in the alleged racket
Judicial Precedents Relied Upon
While the order did not cite specific case names in detail, it relied on established Supreme Court principles that:
Courts must exercise great caution in granting anticipatory bail
Serious offences affecting public order and religious sentiments warrant stricter scrutiny
Investigative agencies must be given adequate latitude where custodial interrogation is required
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision underscores a firm judicial stance that claims of ignorance or misrepresentation cannot override forensic evidence, especially in cases involving cow slaughter laws and public order concerns.
By rejecting the “buffalo meat” defence as an afterthought, the court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail remains an exceptional safeguard, not a default remedy — particularly where statutory violations intersect with religious sensitivities and communal harmony.
The ruling also sends a clear signal that courts will not permit technical defences to dilute the enforcement of laws enacted to protect constitutionally recognised cultural and societal interests.

Comments
Post a Comment