Rajjak v. State Of Haryana

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-10.11.2021 Rajjak ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana, assisted by ASI Inderjeet.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.144 dated 7.5.2021 at Police Station Punhana, District Nuh Mewat, Haryana under Sections 3/8(1), 8/13(3), 17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act 2015 and Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

The FIR was lodged on the basis of secret information to the effect that Rajjak (petitioner) alongwith his 4 sons namely Jugla, Sabir,Namma and Kalu indulged in cow slaughtering and that even on the given day they were slaughtering cows in the house of Rajjak and that in case a raid is conducted,

( 2 ) they can be caught red handed. It is further the case of prosecution that pursuant to receipt of said information, a raid was conducted on the nominated place. While one of the son was apprehended at the spot, the remaining sons as well as the petitioner Rajjak managed to escape. The police recovered 1 balance, 2 axes, 2 motorcycles having same registration number, a cutting implement and 100 kgs. of cow meat and another 50 kgs. of meat apart from 3 cows and 12 calfs etc.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that it is highly unlikely that the petitioner, who is aged about 64 years, could have escaped from the spot despite the fact that the police has prior secret information against him. Learned counsel has submitted that, in any case, the petitioner has now been behind bars since the last more than 5 months and since challan already stands presented, he deserves to be released on bail. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and happens to be involved in one more identical case and since the aforesaid incriminating articles in the shape of slaughtered cows etc. were recovered from the house of the petitioner, no case for grant of bail is made out.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner is aged about 64 years and has been behind bars since the last more than 5 months and challan already stands presented, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his

( 3 ) furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 10.11.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No