Mustakeem v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.33166 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.07.2025 Mustakeem ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'BNSS') seeking anticipatory bail in the case stemming from FIR No.59 dated 01.03.2025 registered under Sections 3, 13(1), 13(3), 8, 17 of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 01.03.2025, the police team patrolling the area of Salamba to Ghasera road received secret information that two individuals, namely Mustakeem, the petitioner and Shokin, were allegedly involved in cow slaughter and were in the process of transporting the meat for sale on a motorcycle bearing registration number HR-27-L-6682. Acting on the said information, the police established a barricade at the location disclosed MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.03 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

by the informer and approximately after 10-15 minutes, two motorcycles were seen approaching from the Ghasera side. Upon being signaled to stop, the said individuals attempted to flee, resulting in the vehicle slipping and them fleeing from the spot. Subsequently, the police recovered approximately 85 kilograms of beef in form of two packages weighing 40 kg and 45 kg, respectively along with the aforementioned motorcycle. Consequently, the FIR(supra) was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that there is no specific role attributed to the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation. She contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the information given by the secret informer is false. Additionally, nothing available on the record connects him to the alleged occurrence.

4.

Per contra learned State counsel submits that a copious amount of beef was recovered from the petitioner. Further, the vehicle in question has also been verified to be registered in his name. Furthermore, there are three other FIR registered against the petitioner. Therefore, it is urged that the present petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that 85 kgs beef was recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused. Further, the aforementioned vehicle bearing registration number HR-27-

L-6682, recovered from the spot, is also registered in the name of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that there are three more FIR's registered against the petitioner, out of which two are of similar nature to the present case, reflecting a consistent modus operandi. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any ground for granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, to serve the larger interest of justice.

7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 02.07.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No