Liaqat Ali v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh CRM-M-11531-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-28.7.2021 Liaqat Ali ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar.

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.56 dated 24.10.2018 at Police Station Taragarh, District Pathankot under Section 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 and Sections 3 and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1934.

2.

As per the FIR, a secret information was received by the police to the effect that Liaqat Ali (petitioner), Gaggu Ali and Mangu were proceeding on a vehicle bearing registration No.JK-08-D-8358 in which five cows were loaded for the purpose of slaughtering them. Pursuant to receipt of said PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.07.28 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRM-M-11531-2020 (O&M) information, the police was able to intercept the vehicle in question but the three persons sitting in the same managed to escape. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never ever arrested at the spot and has been falsely implicated and that in any case since the other two co-accused have already granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner also deserves the same concession on grounds of parity. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, not disputed the fact that the other two identically situated co-accused have already been granted the concession of bail. Learned State counsel has further informed that the petitioner, pursuant to interim directions has already joined investigation. 5.

Having regard to the aforestated facts, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. The petition, as such, is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.3.2020 are hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

28.7.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.07.28 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document