Chandigarh, Aug 26 (PTI): The Punjab and Haryana High Court has revoked the anticipatory bail of a Nuh resident, Asif, accused of transporting cows intended for slaughter, reaffirming the cow's reverence in Indian society.
Charged under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, Asif, along with two others, reportedly aimed to transport cows to Rajasthan for slaughter earlier this year in April.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, in a recent verdict made public on Monday, highlighted the multifaceted implications of the offense, noting the deeply ingrained cultural and emotional significance of cows in India.
The court pointed out that in India's pluralistic society, private acts can disrupt public peace if they challenge the core beliefs of a substantial population segment.
Describing cows as not just pious but central to the agrarian economy, the judge underscored the petitioner's alleged active role in the offense, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation for comprehensive investigation.
The court elaborated that the Indian Constitution not only protects abstract rights but also aims to foster a compassionate and integrated society.
Article 51A(g) requires citizens to show compassion to living creatures, underlining how repeated, deliberate acts of cow slaughter conflict with constitutional morality and social harmony.
Observing Asif's history, the court found him previously involved in three similar FIRs. Previously granted bail as a show of judicial trust, it seemed he misused this leniency instead of respecting it.
Clarifying that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief to shield innocents from undue arrest, the court refused it for habitual offenders or when necessary for effective investigation.
Citing the 2005 Supreme Court verdict in the State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case, the court reaffirmed the legal standing of cow slaughter prohibitory laws as reflecting societal moral and economic values.
While refusing Asif's anticipatory bail, Justice Moudgil acknowledged the delicate balance between safeguarding individual liberty and responding firmly when that liberty is misused. The distinction between the right to bail and impunity was underscored, reflecting the court's stance on addressing repeat offenses of moral turpitude.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)