MOHAMMAD SAJID @ MURGI IQBALBHAI QURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- ILESH VORA
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
- Animal Cruelty Acts. 11(1)(d), s. 11(1)(e)
Subjects
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.