COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.K. Rana for learned Advocate Mr.Maulik Soni appearing on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah 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 these applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11203025250930 of 2025 registered with Junagadh Taluka Police Station, District Junagadh, for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 299, 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5, 6(a), 6(b), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 as well as under Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 as well as under sub-section 3 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954 and under sub-section 4 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2017 and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.

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

5. 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 applicants as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the application may be dismissed.

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

(i) The allegation being under the provisions of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001.

(ii) The allegation being that the accused had arranged a feast and whereas it was decided to serve the meat of cow in the feast and for the said purpose, it is alleged that four accused including the present applicants had gone to a particular place and had picked up/stolen a cow brought the same to uninhabited house and had slaughtered the same and had given the meat to the co-accused and whereas later on, since the accused had developed cold-feet, the meat had been disposed of.

(iii) It would appear in this regard that except for statement of co-accused there is no other material whereby the present applicant could be linked to the offence in question more particularly there being no eyewitnesses either to the stealing part oft slaughtering part.

(iv) This Court has also considered the fact of the applicants being in custody since 15.01.2026 in case of Criminal Misc. Application No. 9429 of 2026 and 05.01.2026 in case of Criminal Misc. Application No. 8910 of 2026 and the charge-sheet having been filed by the Investigating Officer.

(v) While it is alleged that the applicants have antecedents of being in involved similar offence yet, considering the limited material available against the present applicants, this Court is inclined to consider the present applications.

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 the applicants in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of t