Savir Ali Alias Shabeer And ANR v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : CRM-M-28686-2025 Pronounced On : August 18, 2025 Savir Ali @ Shabeer and another ....
Petitioners vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, in case FIR No.53 dated 13.04.2025, under Sections 299, 225, 191(3), 190, 196, 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with Sections 5 and 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, registered at Police Station Machhiwara Sahib, Khanna. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh made statement that he was in the profession of dairy farming and was also the National President of Joint Gau Raksha Dal. On 12.04.2025, at about 10:30 PM, he got secret information that some butchers had gone to a dense forest near Pawat Bridge for slaughtering of cows. He called his friend Nikshan Kumar and both of them reached near the aforesaid dense forest. Near the Pawat Bridge, police officials met them
and they disclosed the said information to the police officials. In the meanwhile, while searching the said dense forest area with the help of torch, at about 01:40 AM, they found some people armed with axes, knives and daah. They all were slaughtering cows. However, they managed to escape due to darkness. The complainant and his friend tried to catch them but could not succeed. From that place, slaughtered cows, beef, scale, motorcycle, modified cart, plastic polythenes and sharp weapons including axe, knives and daah were recovered. The complainant further stated that all the persons were non-Hindus. Their such act and conduct could raise fight between religious groups. Those persons were alleged to be habitual offenders as different FIRs were alleged to be already registered against them in different parts of Punjab. On the basis of this statement, the FIR in question was registered.
Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioners have been falsely involved in the present case. They were not apprehended at the spot. No alleged material has been recovered from the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were involved in the offence in question. Learned counsel further urged that trial of the case is likely to take time. Therefore, the petitioners be granted concession of regular bail.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present bail petition while contending that both the petitioners were found slaughtering cows at the place of occurrence and mutilated remains of cows along with blood stained weapons including axe and knife were recovered from the spot. He further urged that the petitioners have committed a heinous crime and such persons, who are habitual offenders and cruel
towards animals, cannot expect any leniency from the Courts. He prayed that the present petition deserves dismissal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.
The petitioners were not named in the FIR. Whether they were involved in commission of offence in question or not, is a matter of trial. As per the Custody Certificate, which has been placed on record, the petitioners are in custody since 16.04.2025. Challan has already been presented and trial is going on. Conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time. So, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioners behind the bars.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be admitted on regular bail, on furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of concerned learned Trial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
August 18, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.