Man caught with 50kg beef denied bail, HC rejects ‘clever ploy’ that he thought it was buffalo meat

Judge described Noor Mohammad's argument as “nothing but a last-minute effort… to wriggle-out of the embarrassing position"

Observing that a claim of being "misled" by meat-sellers was just a “clever ploy and an afterthought” by a man accused of carrying cow meat in violation of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed his anticipatory bail plea.

Case stems from an FIR registered on July 19, 2025, after 50 kg of meat was recovered from a two-wheeler in Chandigarh. (Representative/HT File Photo)

Justice Aaradhna Sawhney, in her order in the case of Noor Mohammad — a 62-year-old man from Burail in Chandigarh who is accused of transporting beef — noted that the he had failed to make out a case of “exceptional depravity or hardship” that would entitle him to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

The case stems from an FIR registered on July 19, 2025, after 50 kg of meat was recovered from a two-wheeler in Chandigarh. While the petitioner, Noor Mohammad, initially claimed the meat was of buffalo ('buff'), and produced two bills from sellers in Malerkotla and Saharanpur, a forensic report from the National Meat Research Institute in Hyderabad later identified the samples as “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox)”, meaning cow meat or beef.

In court, Noor Mohammad's lawyer counsel argued that he was under a “genuine impression” that he had purchased buffalo meat, and that the sellers had not disclosed it was beef.

Rejecting this reasoning, Justice Sawhney remarked in her order seen by HT: “The plea now taken by petitioner is that he was misled by the sellers... is [a] clever ploy and an afterthought, which does not deserve to be taken note of.”

The court further observed that it could not be presumed that different sellers from two separate locations, in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, would both mislead the petitioner simultaneously.

The judge described the argument as “nothing but a last-minute effort on the part of the petitioner to wriggle-out of the embarrassing position in which he has placed”.

‘Can be threat to communal harmony’

Beyond the technicalities of the accused's defence, the court highlighted the sensitive nature of the offence under the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The judge noted the prosecution's contention that the cow holds a “sacred and revered place” in Indian culture, and that such acts hurt the religious sentiments of the community.

Justice Sawhney warned that such activities, if left unchecked, “can pose a threat to public order and communal harmony”.

She thus agreed with the prosecution that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover a wider racket if any, including locations of slaughter and the identity of other suppliers and purchasers.

Bail an 'exceptional remedy’

Noor Mohammad had alleged that he was being falsely implicated by individuals, specifically a person named Noni, who were “habitual in extorting money from street vendors”.

However, the court did not find merit in this argument.

Referencing Supreme Court precedents, Justice Sawhney reiterated: “Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner.”

She rejected Noor Mohammad's contention of being a law-abiding citizen ready to join the investigation.

What's the case, who complained

Noor Mohammad is a resident of Sector 45C, Burail, Chandigarh, and was booked on July 19, 2025, after a Gau Raksha Dal (cow protection vigilante group) complained, and the police found him with a scooter carrying 50 kg of meat in front of a shop in Burail.

Noor Mohammad initially claimed it was buffalo meat and provided bills from Malerkotla (Punjab) and Saharanpur (UP).

But forensic evidence worked against him. A laboratory report from Hyderabad confirmed the meat was beef. He was booked at first under section 299 of the BNS that deals with acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, was added after the forensic report, but he was not yet arrested.

The HC denied him anticipatory bail on January 19, 2026, ruling that custodial interrogation was essential.