The 'sacred' status of the cow, the Punjab High Court and Haryana rejected the bail pleader in the Slaughter case with reference to the social system

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that cows are a holy animal and that “some acts” can affect peace if it harms the beliefs of “an important population group”. The court said this while rejecting the advance of the accused of the accused of transporting cows for the Nuh resident. Asif and two others were discussed because they allegedly took cows for slaughter for slaughter under the Haryana Gauvansh Protection and Gaus Vardhan Act, 2015 and the Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960 in April this year. Justice Sandeep Maudgil said in an order earlier this month: “In light of the specific situation of cow in Indian society, this crime is also associated with emotional and cultural aspects, in addition to its legal implications.” The order was made public on Monday. The court said: “This court cannot be ignorant of the fact that in a pluralistic society like us, some acts, even if private, can have a serious impact on public peace if they harm the deep beliefs of an important population group.” The judge said that the cow is not only a sacred animal, but also an integral part of India’s agricultural economy. According to the lawyer of the state, the petitioner was actively involved in the crime of alleged cow massacre. Therefore, it was necessary to interrogate him for fair and effective investigation, he argued. The act of alleged cow massacre attacked by the core of constitutional ethics and social system. “The court said that in the current fir, the crime accused in the current fir, related to the allegations of the death of the cow, the feelings deliberately overlooked and disregarded the feelings of the community.” It is evident from the contents offered in the cord that the requester did not commit the crime. Innocent persons of deliberate or arbitrary arrest, not to hide. Those who violate the law again and again. freedom. There must be strong action in the law. Considering the serious nature of the allegations associated with the allegations and the fact that the repellent is an ordinary criminal and is likely to commit crime again, the court believes that there is no basis to give bail in advance. ‘