Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of 62-year-old Noor Mohammad, accused of selling beef in Chandigarh, ruling that his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the larger supply chain behind the illegal meat trade.
Justice Aaradhna Sawhney rejected Mohammad’s defence that he was ‘misled’ by sellers, calling it a “clever ploy and afterthought”.
The judgment, delivered 19 January, marks the second rejection of Mohammad’s bail plea. An additional sessions judge had dismissed his pre-arrest bail application 15 December.
The case stems from a complaint by Amit Sharma, president of the Gau Raksha Dal, on 19 July 2025. Sharma, a resident of Burail village, said he received a tip-off that Mohammad was delivering beef on his scooter.
Sharma and his associates found Mohammad outside Sahib Traders in Sector 45-C with the scooter parked nearby. About 50 kg of meat was found, they alleged.
Mohammad told them that it was buffalo meat and showed them two receipts: one from CML Buffalo Calf Meat in Malerkotla, listed as registered with the Government of India, and the other from a shop in Saharanpur’s meat market.
Police seized the meat and filed an FIR under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class. Mohammad got bail initially.
The sample was then sent to Hyderabad’s National Meat Research Institute. The lab report found that it was bull or ox meat, and not buffalo.
Police then added the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, to the charges. Mohammad was called in for questioning, but he didn’t show up and instead moved the court for anticipatory bail.
Mohammad’s lawyer Jasbir Singh Dadwal, built the defence around two claims. First, Mohammad genuinely believed he was buying buffalo meat and had been duped by the sellers. Second, the petitioner was framed allegedly because he refused to pay extortion money to the complainant.
According to the petition, a man identified as Noni and his associate—both from Sector 45-C—made a habit of extorting street vendors. When Mohammad refused to pay, they framed him with a false complaint.
Dadwal also argued that custodial interrogation was pointless as there was nothing left to recover and Mohammad was willing to cooperate.
Additional Public Prosecutor Rahul Arora, along with advocates Devinder Rajput and Sushant Gupta representing the complainant, challenged Mohammad’s version.
They argued it was implausible that two separate vendors—one in Punjab, one in Uttar Pradesh—sold him meat of bull while assuring him it was buffalo’s. This wasn’t an isolated transaction, they argued, but was part of a network.
They also argued that custodial interrogation was essential to determine who supplied the meat, where the animals were slaughtered, how it was distributed, and who the buyers were.
The complainant’s counsel contended that the cow occupies a sacred place in the Hindu religion and culture, and that Mohammad’s actions hurt religious sentiment. They also argued that such activities threatened public order and communal harmony.
Justice Sawhney noted that the anticipatory bail principle was an exceptional remedy and courts shouldn’t hand it out routinely, citing a 2025 Supreme Court judgment.
The court said Mohammad’s story didn’t hold up. He had two bills claiming buffalo meat, but the lab identified it as bull or ox. Moreover, his claim that he was deceived was a “clever ploy and an afterthought”.
The judge ruled that the prosecution’s questions—about who else was involved, where the slaughter was happening, how the meat was moving through Chandigarh despite a legal ban, and who was buying it—were legitimate.
According to the court, Mohammad’s custodial interrogation could provide the answers, and he hadn’t shown any exceptional hardship that would justify pre-arrest bail.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: What did forensic lab reports say in high-profile beef lynching cases of the past decade?