CRM-M-17398 of 2011 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M-17398 of 2011 Decided on July 07,2011 Mohammad Shakil --Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sagar Deswal,A.A.G.Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.38 dated 08.3.2011, under Sections 279/336 IPC, 11/59/60 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (for short,'the Act') and 3/4/5/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act,1955 (for short,'the Act of 1955') at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially, the FIR was lodged under Sections 279/336 IPC alongwith Section 11/59/60 of the Act in which the petitioners were enlarged on bail on 09.3.2011 but as they could not furnish requisite bail bonds, they were sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, the prosecution added Sections 3/4/5/8 of the Act,1955. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two other CRM-M-17398 of 2011 2 co accused namely Morshlin and Noshad have been granted regular bail by this Court in CRM-M- 14573 of 2011. She has also argued that once bail has been granted in offences under Sections 279/336 IPC readwith Section 11/59/60 of the Act and Section 3/4/5/8 of the Act,1955 were added later on for which the penalty is neither life imprisonment nor death because the penalty under Section 8 of the Act,1955 is only two years' R.I., the petitioner can be enlarged in the same bail on his furnishing fresh bail bond with personal surety to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate for the newly added section. In this regard, she has also relied upon a decision of this Court in CRM-M- 5923 of 2011 (O&M) Sonu @ Rinku @ Lambu Vs. State of Punjab decided on 24.2.1011. She further argued that there is no material on record from which the allegation of slaughtering of bulls could be made out. In reply, learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner has brutally huddled the bulls in the truck by tying their legs and mouths which was not only cruelty towards them but also it has come during investigation that the bulls were transported for the purpose of slaughter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undoubtedly, allegations against the petitioner and two other co -accused namely Morshlin and Noshad (who have already been granted bail by this Court on 27.5.2011 ) is the same. Secondly, the petitioner has also been granted bail by this Court under Sections 279/336 IPC, 11/59/60 of the Act and Section3/4/5/8 of the Act of 1955 was added later on which is punishable only for a period of 2 years or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/-. CRM-M-17398 of 2011 3 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without observing any thing on the merits of this case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ Surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. July 07,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge