Court Emphasizes Need for Custodial Interrogation to Uncover Broader Conspiracy and Protect Communal Harmony
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Noor Mohammad, the petitioner accused of possession and supply of beef, which allegedly violates religious sentiments and statutory prohibitions. The decision, delivered by Justice Aaradhna Sawhney on January 19, 2026, underscores the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail and the necessity of custodial interrogation in cases with severe communal implications.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Amit Sharma, President of Gau Raksha Dal, who alleged that Noor Mohammad was involved in supplying beef in Chandigarh. The complaint led to a police investigation and the recovery of approximately 50 kilograms of beef from the petitioner’s possession.
The petitioner claimed that he was misled by sellers into believing the meat was buffalo, not beef. However, an expert report from the National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad, confirmed the meat as 'Bull/Ox', contradicting the petitioner’s defense. The court found this defense to be an afterthought and lacking credibility.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora, emphasized the sacred status of cows in Hindu culture and the potential threat to communal harmony posed by such activities. They argued that Noor Mohammad's actions were part of a larger racket involving illegal cow slaughter and the sale of beef, necessitating further investigation through custodial interrogation.
The court's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's precedent, as cited in the case of "Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and another," which states that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely and is reserved for exceptional circumstances.
Despite Noor Mohammad's age and his counsel's argument of false implication, the court concluded that the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on public order justified the need for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, highlighting the court's commitment to addressing offenses that threaten communal harmony and public safety.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner, especially when the allegations involve hurting religious sentiments and require custodial interrogation for uncovering the broader conspiracy.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Section 8
Noor Mohammad v. State of U.T Chandigarh, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843568
