Criminal Misc. No. M-3566 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No. M-3566 of 2009
Date of Decision:06.02.2009
Yaseen
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Yaseen under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.465 dated 20.12.2008
registered under Section 4B/8 of Cow-Slaughter Act, Section 11 PAC Act
and 120-B IPC at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar.
The brief facts are that on 20.12.2008, the police received
information regarding the cows being transported in a vehicle bearing
registration No.DL ICG-4748 for taking to UP for slaughtering purpose.
Accordingly, the vehicle in question was intercepted and four cows and one
calf were recovered from it. The vehicle was being driven by Bhim Yadav
co-accused and was occupied by Niranjan Chadha co-accused, the dealer.
Bhim Yadav was arrested at the spot. Niranjan Chadha @ Babbal managed
to run away from the spot. On interrogation, Bhim Yadav disclosed that on
the saying of Yaseen, the applicant, the owner of the vehicle in question, he
had loaded the cows in the vehicle. The vehicle in question is involved in
Criminal Misc. No. M-3566 of 2009 -2-
like offence under Section 4B/8 of Cow Slaughter Act at Rajpura (Punjab).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides
perusing the record. The petitioner is a transporter by occupation. He is the
owner of vehicle bearing registration No.DLICG-4748 from which four
cows and one calf were recovered for being taken to Uttar Pradesh for
slaughtering. This very vehicle is also involved in similar offence at
Rajpura (Punjab) as so observed by the Court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri in order dated 30.1.2009. It is
inferable that this vehicle is being used for an illegal purpose. The
provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
invoked, where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper
investigation. A Court considering such application must strike a balance
between the rights of an accused and the duty and obligation conferred upon
an investigating agency. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required to elicit as to under what circumstances, his vehicle is being used
over and over again for commission of the same offence. Considering the
facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 438 ibid, I
am of the considered opinion that the present petition merits dismissal.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
February 06, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? No