"Severe Repercussions On Public Peace": Punjab and Haryana HC Denies Bail To 'Habitual' Cow Slaughterer In Nuh
Chandigarh: Dismissing the anticipatory bail given to Aasif, a Nuh resident, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated that slaughtering cows can have serious repercussions on public peace. Calling him a habitual offender, Justice Sandeep Moudgil said that the act of repeatedly slaughtering cows is not only a legal violation but also encompasses emotional and cultural implications.
Aasif along with two other were booked in a cow slaughter case for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan. The FIR was registered on April 3, 2025, in Sadar police station under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960.
Also Read | Dharmasthala ‘Potential Conspiracy’?: SIT To Shift Focus Amid Demand For NIA Probe
As per the State counsel’s arguments, Aasif had been actively involved in the alleged offense of cow slaughter in the past. He was involved in at least three similar FIRs and was apprehended from the place of occurrence, the police claimed. Thus, his custodial interrogation was pertinent for a fair and effective investigation.
The Court rejected Aasif’s plea, stating that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to those who repeatedly violated the law.
“The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society. This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group,” the Court said.
“The cow is not only a pious animal but also an integral part of India’s agrarian economy,” the judge added.
Citing Article 51A(g), the Court underlined that the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen “to show compassion to all living creatures.”
While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also added that the Court is aware of the importance of protecting individual liberty.
“But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner’s conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness. The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity,” the order stated.
