Gujarat HC Rejects Bail of Accused With Eight Prior FIRs in Beef Recovery Case, Cites Communal Harmony Risk

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar refused regular bail to Mohammad Aarif Samol, citing eight similar antecedents, alleged misuse of earlier bail, and risk to public order under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rejected a regular bail application filed by Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol, who has been in judicial custody since 3 January 2026 in connection with an FIR registered at Godhra Town B Division Police Station, Panchmahal. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly, found that the applicant carried eight prior FIRs of a similar nature, that he had allegedly continued to engage in the same conduct even after being enlarged on bail on earlier occasions, and that the offences had the potential to disturb communal harmony. The court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and ensure that material witnesses are examined at the earliest.

The FIR and the Charges

The case arises from FIR No. C.R. 11207002250717 of 2025, registered at Godhra Town B Division Police Station, Panchmahal. The applicant faces charges under Sections 5(1), 6(b), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 (as amended in 2017), Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.

The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act prohibits the slaughter of cow progeny and regulates the transport and possession of beef within the State. The 2017 amendment strengthened the penal provisions under the Act.

The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs regular bail after a chargesheet has been filed.

What the Police Found on 1 December 2025

According to the prosecution's case, on 1 December 2025 the police received specific information that the applicant was transporting beef in a Swift car bearing registration number GJ-05-CF-0771 from an unknown location and had stored it in a plot adjacent to his residence. Acting on this information, the police conducted a raid at the said plot.

When the police arrived, the co-accused persons allegedly fled the spot. During the search, the police recovered approximately 23 kilograms of suspected beef packed in plastic carry bags. The muddamal articles also included a knife, a weighing scale, and other materials allegedly used for slaughtering and sale of beef. The prosecution further alleged that the applicant had engaged certain persons for the purpose of selling the beef.

Three co-accused persons who fled during the raid remained at large at the time of the hearing.

Applicant's Case for Bail

Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Altaf Y. Charkha, submitted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 3 January 2026. The investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. The trial was likely to take considerable time. Counsel also submitted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

The prosecution, represented by Ms. Shruti Pathak, Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the application. She contended that the applicant was a habitual offender with eight prior FIRs of a similar nature relating to illegal slaughtering activities, all registered at police stations in Panchmahal district. She further submitted that the applicant had allegedly misused bail granted on earlier occasions by continuing to engage in the same conduct, and that three co-accused persons were still absconding.

Eight Prior FIRs: The Antecedents on Record

The court noted that the record disclosed eight antecedents of a similar nature registered against the applicant, all from Panchmahal district:

• Godhra Town B Division Police Station — FIR No. 984/2020
• Godhra Town B Division Police Station — FIR No. 156/2023 (listed three times in the record)
• Godhra Town B Division Police Station — FIR No. 668/2023 (listed twice in the record)
• Godhra Town B Division Police Station — FIR No. 1297/2024
• Shahera Police Station, Panchmahal — FIR No. 905/2023

The prosecution's specific case was that despite having been enlarged on bail on previous occasions, the applicant continued to indulge in similar activities, thereby misusing the liberty granted by the court.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Suthar examined the constitutional framework alongside the statutory scheme. He referred to Article 48 of the Constitution, which directs the State to take steps for preserving and improving breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle. He also referred to Article 51A(g), which casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for living creatures. The court observed that while fundamental duties are not enforceable by themselves, they reflect the constitutional philosophy and legislative intent that informed the enactment of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The court then addressed the public order dimension. It observed that the cow is regarded as sacred and worthy of protection by a substantial section of Indian society, including members of the Hindu and Jain communities, and that repeated involvement in offences of this nature is capable of hurting public sentiments and creating social tension in the locality. The court held that such activities not only defeat the object and purpose of the legislation but also have the potential to adversely affect public order and communal harmony.

On the balance between personal liberty and societal interest, the court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, which held that individual liberty, though of paramount importance, is not absolute and must be balanced against the larger interest of society.

Applying these principles, the court found that the antecedents of the applicant indicated a recurring pattern of conduct and, prima facie, demonstrated misuse of the liberty granted by the court on earlier occasions. The court concluded that in the facts of the present case, the societal interest outweighed the applicant's claim for regular bail.

Direction for Speedy Trial

While rejecting the bail application, the court acknowledged that the chargesheet had already been filed and that the prosecution had cited only 26 witnesses, many of whom were official witnesses, panch witnesses, or repeated witnesses. To safeguard the applicant's right to a speedy trial, the court directed the trial court to make all possible endeavours to expedite the trial. The prosecution was directed to ensure that material witnesses are examined at the earliest, with the court referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 1155.

Order

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar rejected the application for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the BNSS. The court held that no case was made out for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant. Rule was discharged. The trial court was separately directed to expedite the trial and the prosecution was directed to ensure timely examination of material witnesses.