HC flags lax enforcement of cow protection law in Haryana

Expressing serious concern over the enforcement of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that an alarming increase in cases under the legislation indicated its improper execution.

“The prime objective of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, is to curtail the cow slaughtering, consumption of beef menace emanating from powerful meat lobby consuming and selling beef for their own satiation. But the alarming situation with the increase in such litigations apparently shows that the Act is not executed properly in its true spirit,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil asserted.

The observation came as Justice Moudgil dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an accused in a case registered at the Dhauj police station in Faridabad for attempt to murder and other offences under Sections 148, 149, 186, 429, and 307 of the IPC, and the provisions of the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and the Arms Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and his involvement was based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused. Besides this, he was not apprehended at the scene. The State, on the other hand, countered that the petitioner owned the vehicle used in the alleged offense and that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovering a weapon and determining his exact role.

Referring to the seriousness of the allegations and the need to bring the offenders to justice, Justice Moudgil asserted: “First and foremost, the court hearing anticipatory bail is to consider the gravity of the offense and the prima facie case against the accused. It is necessary to bring the offenders to book, for which the courts should refrain from taking a lenient view.”

Dismissing the plea, Justice Moudgil ruled that the circumstances did not warrant anticipatory bail, while referring to the allegations of the petitioner playing an active role and ownership of the vehicle used in the alleged crime. “The mere fact that the petitioner was not found on the spot would not vest a right upon him for grant of anticipatory bail, more particularly when there are other relevant factors which deserve consideration…. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and nature of averments, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed,” the court added.