Cow slaughter can have repercussions on peace: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The cow is a pious animal and "certain acts" can severely impact peace when they offend beliefs of a "significant population group", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said while dismissing the anticipatory bail given to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter.

Asif was booked along with two others in April this year under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960, for allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.

"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," Justice Sandeep Moudgil said in an order earlier this month. It was made public only on 25 August, Monday, however.

"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 said.

According to the state counsel, the petitioner was actively involved in the alleged offence of cow slaughter. Therefore, his custodial interrogation was imperative for a fair and effective investigation, he submitted.

The court said the Constitution does not merely protect rights in abstraction but seeks to build a just, compassionate, and cohesive society.

"Article 51A(g) Constitution of India enjoins every citizen to show compassion to all living creatures. It is in this context that the alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order," said the order.

The court observed that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large.

'It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first-time offender. He is alleged to have previously been involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences.

"In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," said the court order.

Anticipatory bail, it said, is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest, not to provide sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.

Protection of pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has been shown to be a habitual offender or where his custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, it said.

The court also cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2005 State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case that upheld the Constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitory laws and recognised the Constitutional directive under Article 48 of the Constitution as reflecting the moral and economic ethos of society.

While dismissing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Moudgil also observed that the court is conscious of the need to safeguard 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," according to the order.

"Considering the serious nature of the allegations involving offences of moral turpitude, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender with a likelihood of reoffending, this court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out for grant of anticipatory bail," it said.