In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Criminal Misc. No.M-32901 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:14.1.2010 Avtar Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the complainant. ..... (2) Criminal Misc. No.M-3569 of 2009 ..... Dilshad Hazi alias Mohd. Dilshad and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This order will dispose of the above mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions as the same arise from FIR No.161 dated Cr. M. No.M-32901/2008 & Cr. Misc. No.3569 of 2009 [2] 25.10.2008. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 295 and 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 4-A and 4-B read with Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (`Act' – for short) as also Section 3 of the Act which was added later registered at Police Station Sadar Sangrur. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Satish Kumar who has alleged that he received secret information that the petitioners have been slaughtering cows at Dashmesh Dhaba which is situated within the limit of Village Khurana whose owners are Avtar Singh and Gurtej Singh (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-32901 of 2008). It is submitted that their organization was working to safeguard the cows for the last 20 years. They have received secret information that Dilshad Hazi alias Mohd. Dilshad and Imran Hazi alias Imran Qurashi (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-3569 of 2009) after slaughtering the cows in the go-down of palace situated on Sangrur Bhawanigarh road at Village Khurana on the rear side of Dashmesh Dhaba in connivance with the owner of the palace, namely, Avtar Singh sell beef in U.P. and Delhi. In this work Matluf son of Abdul Hamid and Rehas are also conniving. The names of other companions have also been mentioned including that of one Billa and nephew of Dilshad Hazi, namely, Kallu; besides Sultan and their two brothers. For carrying the said work it is alleged that Dilshad Hazi used his vehicles, the number of which are mentioned. The President of Dhanola Truck Union, namely, Moju loaded the cows from Dhanola and received Rs.3,000/- per truck for the said work. The sentiments of the Hindu and Cr. M. No.M-32901/2008 & Cr. Misc. No.3569 of 2009 [3] Sikh religions are attached with the cows. The said persons, it is alleged, hurt the feelings of every person by slaughtering the cows. Cow slaughtering, it is submitted, is totally banned in Punjab State despite that the activities are being carried out. Learned senior counsel in Criminal Misc. No.M-32901 of 2008 has submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners and the case is based merely on hearsay allegations. It is submitted that the bones that were recovered were examined by the Veterinary Doctors and the report that has been furnished does not establish the same to be that of cows. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the trucks that were used in the occurrence are still to be recovered. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there are several FIRs against the petitioners of this nature and in case the concession of bail is granted they are likely to indulge in similar activities. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it is not in dispute that in the present case the challan in the case has been filed. Therefore, evidently the custody of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. The fact that the trucks have not been recovered was a matter to be considered before the challan has been filed. In any case, the numbers of trucks are mentioned in the FIR and it is not shown whether any efforts were made to ascertain as to whom the trucks belong; besides the medical reports referred to by the learned senior counsel are to be considered and gone into by the trial Court at the appropriate stage and it would be improper to examine the same at this stage. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the Cr. M. No.M-32901/2008 & Cr. Misc. No.3569 of 2009 [4] complainant that the petitioners are involved in several similar activities, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has denied the same. In any case, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that they can be bound down by furnishing personal bonds in this regard. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. The interim order dated 15.12.2008 in Criminal Misc. No.M- 32901 of 2008 and interim order dated 11.2.2009 in Criminal Misc. No.M- 3569 of 2009 are made absolute. The petitioners in the respective petitions shall, however, furnish personal bonds and also two sureties each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and the respective petitioners and one of the sureties each shall undertake that while on bail the petitioners shall not indulge in similar activities, maintain peace and be of good behaviour while on bail. The criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of. January 14, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*