The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Chandigarh resident accused of illegally possessing and supplying beef, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger chain involved in the offence.
The order was passed by Justice Aaradhna Sawhney while hearing a plea filed by Noor Mohammad, who sought protection from arrest in a case registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act.
Read also:- Drug Sample Delay Breaks Case: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Company Directors
Background of the Case
The case traces back to July 19, 2025, when a complaint was lodged by Amit Sharma, president of Gau Raksha Dal, alleging that Noor Mohammad was supplying beef in Sector 45-C, Burail, Chandigarh.
Acting on specific information, the complainant and others reached near a shop where the accused was found standing beside a two-wheeler. According to the prosecution, around 50 kilograms of meat was recovered from the vehicle. The complainant alleged that the act hurt religious sentiments, as the cow is considered sacred in Hindu belief.
Initially, an FIR was registered under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Noor Mohammad was granted bail at that stage.
During investigation, a sample of the seized meat was sent to the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad. The laboratory report identified the meat as Bos indicus - bull or ox - and not buffalo, as claimed by the accused.
Following the forensic opinion, Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 was added to the FIR. The petitioner was issued fresh notices to join the investigation but failed to cooperate, prompting apprehension of arrest.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Backs Pollution Board’s Emergency Powers, Sends Hotel to NGT Over Power Cut
Counsel for Noor Mohammad argued that the 62-year-old petitioner had been falsely implicated. He claimed that the meat was purchased under the genuine belief that it was buffalo meat, supported by two purchase bills from sellers in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.
It was further alleged that local individuals were extorting money from street vendors and had falsely named the petitioner after he refused to pay. The defence stressed that no further recovery was required and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the explanation offered by the petitioner was implausible. The State contended that it was unlikely that two independent sellers would mislead the buyer about the nature of the meat.
The complainant’s counsel submitted that the act had serious implications for public order and communal harmony. It was also alleged that the petitioner was part of a larger network involved in illegal beef trade.
Read also:- S. 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Under SC/ST Act: Kerala HC
Court’s Observations
After examining the record, the High Court referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling which held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not be granted routinely.
“The plea that the petitioner was misled by sellers is a clever ploy and an afterthought,” the Court observed, noting that the forensic report clearly contradicted the defence version.
Justice Sawhney further observed that custodial interrogation was essential to ascertain the source of the meat, the persons involved, and the manner in which the illegal activity was being carried out.
Decision
Concluding that the petitioner failed to show any exceptional hardship warranting pre-arrest protection, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.
Case Title: Noor Mohammad vs State of U.T. Chandigarh
Case No.: CRM-M-72360-2025
Decision Date: 19 January 2026
