The Punjab And Haryana High Court in the case Shrif v. State of Haryana observed that he was carrying the cows in the pitiable condition and the allegations made against him are very serious. Therefore, the court in the case rejected bail of an accused who is booked under provisions of Haryana Gauvans Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, wherein it allegedly took cows for slaughtering.
Therefore, last year, the worker of Bajrang Dal had filed of the complaint wherein it alleged that they had received information and followed the car carrying the cows. It was also alleged that when the complainant tried to stop the accused, therefore, in the case they remanded their vehicle against his car and also threw cows in an attempt to stop them and the cows in the case were being transported to Rajasthan for the purpose of slaughtering, the complainant alleged.
However, in the said case the accused named Shrif is being denied bail who is in custody since November 2022.
The bench headed by Justice Gurbir Singh in the case observed and took note of the allegation wherein the complainant tried to stop them and they remanded their vehicle against the vehicle of the complainant and ran away.
Further, the court in the case stated that the complainant and the other chased the vehicle and even the stones were being thrown on the complainant party and cows, which were being carried allegedly for slaughtering, were also being thrown in their way to stop the complainant party in order to chase them. Thus, the trail of the case is yet to start.
The court in the case observed and took note of the alleged concealment of the registration of an earlier offence under the same Act.
The bench headed by Justice Gurbir Singh stated that this being apparent concealment of registration of an earlier case against the petitioner and there is no explanation of the same. So, the petitioner in the case is not entitled for grant of relief in this petition only on the ground that he has concealed an important fact from this Court.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that challan has bee presented in this case and nothing has been recovered from his possession.
Further, the bench of Justice Singh stated while keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and the gravity of offence, the said court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail, at this stage.
The counsel, Advocate Azad Khan appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, DAG Karan Sharma represented the Haryana