Hakam v. State Of Haryana

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 07.08.2025 Hakam . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. PK Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1.

In the present regular bail petition, on 29.04.2025, following order was passed:- "1.

Prayer in the present petition under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.66 dated 15.02.2022 under Sections 13(2) of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 and Section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 279, 336, 429 IPC (Section 201 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Bawal, District Rewari. 2.

As per allegations, the truck used in the crime i.e. PB05AP0183 was used by the accused persons for transportation of the 22 cows, whose mouths and legs were tied for slaughtering purpose. 09 of cows had already died at the time of apprehension and three of the accused were arrested at the spot. Vehicle in question was get released by the petitioner on superdari and thereupon he was involved in the case as accused. 3.

Court is further informed that petitioner is facing similar prosecution in 05 other cases, however, he is not sure whether the vehicle involved in the other cases is the same or there were some other vehicles.

- 2 - Thus, he prays for grant of time to ascertain the said fact. 4.

Counsel for the petitioner clarified that in two of the criminal cases, the petitioner been acquitted. List again on 07.08.2025, for further consideration." 2.

Today, on being asked by the Court, learned State counsel informs that the truck belonging to the petitioner is not found to be involved in any other case of a similar nature. However, he is unable to counter the fact that, out of five other cases, the petitioner has already been acquitted in two, as was recorded by the petitioner's counsel on the previous date of hearing, i.e., 29.04.2025.

3.

After investigation of the case, challan has already been submitted before the trial Court along with a list of 17 prosecution witnesses. However, the trial is yet to commence. Besides, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 14.02.2025 and is no longer required for any meaningful purpose.

4.

In view of all the aforementioned facts and the discussion made here-above, I deem it appropriate to consider the plea for regular bail of the petitioner.

5.

Consequently, prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case. 6.

Needless to observe that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

7.

The observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an

- 3 - expression of opinion on the facts of the case and the Trial Court is expected to decide the case on the basis of complete evidence available on record. 8.

Petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 07, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No