ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.H. Daiya appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11214008250858 of 2025 registered with Bardoli Town Police Station, Surat Rural, for the offence punishable under Sections 5, 6(A), 6(B) and 8(2) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (amendment) Act and Section 11(1)(L) of the Animal Cruelty Act.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that charge-sheet is filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

7. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. The allegation in the FIR being that the accused had transacted in the prohibited meat (cow progeny).

ii. The fact of the applicant being present at the place where the cow meat was recovered and the same being his residence.

iii. Having observed as above, it would appear that the present applicant is alleged to have purchased the prohibited meat from a co-accused, and whereas, even during the raid there was no carcass or other articles found at the place where the applicant was arrested which would reflect that the animal had been slaughtered at the place, where the meat had been found.

iv. It would also appear that the person who is alleged to have slaughtered the animal, has been enlarged by learned Coordinate Bench on anticipatory bail. Though the present applicant is stated to have four antecedents, two of similar nature, considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 28.07.2025 and all other co-accused have been released, this Court is inclined to consider this application.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as C.R. No. 11214008250858 of 2025 registered with Bardoli Town Police Station, Surat Rural, on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that she shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;

[e] furnish the present address of residence t