Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

MOHAMMAD SAJID @ MURGI IQBALBHAI QURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant despite the pending charges.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat considered an application for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the BNSS by Mohammad Sajid, arrested on 5 May 2026 in connection with a FIR alleging offences under Section 325 of the BNSS, several provisions of the Animal Preservation Act, the Animal Cruelty Act and the BPMC Act relating to the illegal slaughter of a cow. The applicant contended that he merely acted as a lookout and was not present at the scene, and therefore his continued detention was unwarranted. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the accusations and the applicant’s conduct. After examining the evidence, the court found that the applicant’s role was limited, the prosecution had not shown a need for further custody, and the trial would be lengthy, so it granted bail subject to stringent conditions. The order directed the applicant to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety and imposed conditions such as not entering the jurisdiction of Vejalpur Police Station for six months and not leaving India without permission.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted before the filing of a chargesheet for offences under the BNSS, Animal Preservation Act, Animal Cruelty Act and BPMC Act
  • Whether the applicant’s alleged role as a lookout justifies the grant of bail
  • Whether the prosecution has demonstrated a necessity for continued custodial detention

Legislation cited

Subjects

regular bailpre‑chargesheet bailanimal crueltycow slaughterSection 483B.N.SAnimal Preservation ActBPMC Actcriminal procedurebail conditions

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/12327/2026                                ORDER DATED: 02/06/2026




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

  R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL -
       BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 12327 of 2026
=========================================
      MOHAMMAD SAJID @ MURGI IQBALBHAI QURESHI
                          Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                              Date : 02/06/2026

                                ORAL ORDER

1.      Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent
        State.


2.      The applicant, by way of this application filed under Section 483 of
        the BNSS, seeks regular bail in connection with the FIR being
        C.R. No. 11191028260200 of 2026 registered with Vejalpur
        Police     Station,   Dist.   Ahmedabad     City,   for   the   offences
        punishable under Sections 325 of the B.N.S, and under sections
        5(1), 5(1)(1A), 6, 6B, 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Animal Preservation
        Act and under section 11(1)(d), 11(1)(e) of the Animal Cruelty Act
        and under Sections 335 and 392 of the BPMC Act.


3.      It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that
        applicant was arrested on 05/05/2026. He further submitted that
        the applicant has not played any vital role in the alleged offence.
        Hence, further detention of the applicant is unwarranted.
4.      Learned APP has opposed the bail application contending that,
        considering the conduct of the applicant and nature of accusation,
        the discretion may not be exercised in favour of the applicant.



                                      Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.MA/12327/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 02/06/2026




5.      Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
        upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the
        role attributed to the present applicant is that, at the relevant
        point of time, he was allegedly assigned the duty of keeping watch
        so as to facilitate the execution of the alleged act of slaughtering
        the cow. However, the applicant was not found present at the
        place of occurrence at the relevant time. In the aforesaid
        circumstances, having regard to the role attributed to the
        applicant, the nature of the evidence collected in support of the
        charge, and subject to the imposition of stringent conditions, this
        Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged
        on bail. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and
        the applicant is available to face the trial. The prosecution has not
        pointed out any circumstance indicating that further custodial
        detention of the applicant is necessary. In such circumstances,
        continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful
        purpose. Hence, the present bail application deserves to be
        allowed.


6.      In such circumstances, considering the role attributable to present
        applicant herein and evidence in support of charge, without
        commenting on merits of the matter, I deemed it fit to release the
        applicant on bail. Hence, present application is allowed.


7.      Hence, the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11191028260200 of 2026
registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad City, on
executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only),
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court and subject to the conditions that he shall:


     I. not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

     II. not   act    in   a   manner   injuries   to   the   interest     of      the


                                    Page 2 of 3
      R/CR.MA/12327/2026                                                                      ORDER DATED: 02/06/2026




           prosecution;

     III.     not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the
         prosecution;


     IV.not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions
        Judge concerned;


     V. the applicant herein shall not enter into the jurisdiction the
        area of Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for a period of
        six months.


     VI.furnish latest address of residence to the Investigating
        Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the
        bond and shall not change the residence without prior
        permission of the trial Court;


8.      The authorities shall release the applicant if he is not required in
        connection with the any other offence. If breach of any above
        condition is committed, the                              Sessions Judge concerned shall take
        appropriate action or issue warrant against the applicant. The bail
        bond to be executed before the learned trial Court having
        jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the sessions judge
        concerned to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above
        conditions, in accordance with law. Nothing stated hereinabove,
        shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of
        this case.             Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
        service permitted.




                                                                                               (ILESH J. VORA,J)
Kaushal Rathod

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/06/2026 13:31:01




                                                            Page 3 of 3


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "regular bail"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.