“Cow Has Unique Status, Its Slaughter Can Have Repercussions On Peace”: Punjab & Haryana HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Nuh resident accused of transporting cows for slaughter, emphasizing that acts hurting the beliefs of a significant section of society can disturb public peace in a pluralistic country like India.

Case Background

The petitioner, Asif, along with 2 others, was booked in April 2025 under the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. They were allegedly transporting cows to Rajasthan for slaughter.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed the bail plea earlier this month, with the order being made public on August 25.

‘Cow Holds Unique Status In Indian Society’

Highlighting the cultural and economic significance of the cow, the court remarked, “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.”

The bench added that certain actions, even when private in nature, can spark wider unrest when they offend deeply held beliefs.

“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.”

Legal Mandate

Justice Moudgil noted that the Constitution seeks to foster a compassionate society, not just protect abstract rights. Referring to Article 51A(g), which calls upon citizens to show kindness to living creatures, the court observed:

“The alleged act of cow slaughter committed repeatedly, deliberately, and provocatively strikes at the core of constitutional morality and social order.”

The judgment also cited the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, which upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibition laws and recognized Article 48 as a reflection of India’s moral and economic ethos.

Habitual Offender Misused Judicial Trust

The court noted that Asif had previously faced three FIRs for similar offences and had been granted bail 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,” the order said.

Calling anticipatory bail a discretionary relief meant to protect innocents from arbitrary arrest—not a license for repeated violations—the court said:

“Considering the serious nature of allegations, the moral undertones of the offence, and the petitioner’s record as a habitual offender with high chances of reoffending, this Court finds no grounds to grant anticipatory bail.”

The court concluded that individual liberty cannot translate into impunity and stressed the need for custodial interrogation to ensure a fair investigation.