AJAYAK EKKA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010339332026 2026:CGHC:39063
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.8250 of 2026
1 - Ajayak Ekka Son Of Johan Ekka, Aged About 35 Years Residing
Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.)
2 - Sushil Kujur Son Of Gabriel Kujur, Aged About 28 Years
Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur
(C.G.)
3 - Pramod Ekka Son Of Linus Ekka Aged About 30 Years Residing
Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.)
4 - Agastus Tirki Son Of Hinrik Tirki Aged About 34 Years Residing
Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.)
5 - Sanjay Tirki Son Of Marshel Tirki, Aged About 40 Years
Residing Of Mudabahla Karrajor PS Bagbahar District Jashpur
(C.G.)
6 - Habil Ekka Son Of Sundar Sai Aged About 27 Years Residing
Of Haldijhariya Dadpani PS Bagbahar District Jashpur (C.G.)
SISTLA
NEELIMA
... Applicants
VISHNU
PRIYA
Digitally signed by
SISTLA NEELIMA
VISHNU PRIYA
Date: 2026.09.05
10:55:43 +0530

2
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bagbahar District -
Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
03.09.2026
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
1.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)
for grant of regular bail to the Applicants who have been
arrested in connection with Crime No.61/2026 registered at
Police Station Bagbahar, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) for the
offences under Sections 4, 5, 6 & 10 of Chhattisgarh
Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.
2. As per the prosecution, complainant Khemanidhi Yadav
reported that on 30.06.2026 at about 8:00 p.m., while he was
standing outside his house along with his brother Dhanurjay,
he noticed four persons, two of whom were travelling on
separate motorcycles and two were walking, hurriedly driving
a cow from Barkhoria towards Mudabahala-Karrajor. Upon
being questioned, one of them stated that they were from

3
Karrajor and had purchased the cow from Tulsi Chauhan.
The complainant thereafter went to the house of Tulsi
Chauhan and on enquiry, she stated that Applicant No.1 of
Mudabahala-Karrajor had come along with three persons and
a child and stating that they wanted to purchase a cow for
feeding milk to the child, had purchased the cow from her.
Suspecting the manner in which the cow was being hurriedly
driven away, the complainant, along with Dhanurjay Yadav,
Fagu Chauhan, Narad Manjhi, Vimal @ Nirmal Manjhi,
Bajrang Manjhi, Ravipal, Ashish and Shashi Chauhan, went
in search of the persons. On noticing several torch lights
towards the fields, they proceeded there, whereupon, on
seeing them approaching, the persons present fled from the
spot. Upon entering the pit, they found the hide of a cow, its
severed head with both horns removed, both ears bearing
identification tag No.102220038791, all four severed legs with
hooves, fresh cow dung and blood scattered around the spot,
along with a wooden block having pieces of flesh stuck to it.
On verification of the identification tag number, the cow was
found to belong to Tulsi Chauhan of Barkhoria, from whom it
had been purchased by Applicant No.1 of Mudabahala-
Karrajor along with all other Applicants. Based on these
allegations, the offences as mentioned above, have been

4
registered against the present Applicants. Hence, the present
bail application.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the
Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is submitted that there is no direct
allegation that any of the Applicants was seen slaughtering
the cow, removing its hide, cutting its body parts or using any
weapon or implement in the alleged occurrence. It is further
submitted that the alleged incident took place at about 8:00
p.m. during night hours and as per the prosecution itself, the
persons present at the spot fled upon seeing torch lights,
making the identification of any particular accused doubtful. It
is further submitted that no incriminating article or animal
remains have been recovered from the possession of the
Applicants and the alleged recovery of the animal remains,
plastic bag, wooden block and other articles has been made
from an open and accessible field, which cannot be
connected to the Applicants through any independent
evidence so as to establish their exclusive possession,
knowledge or participation. It is further submitted that even
as per the prosecution case, the cow was purchased from
Tulsi Chauhan for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and mere
purchase or transportation of the cow, by itself, does not

5
establish that the same was being transported for the
purpose of slaughter or with the requisite knowledge that it
was likely to be slaughtered, as contemplated under Section
6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act,
2004. It is also submitted that there is no prima facie material
establishing that the recovered material was “beef” or that the
Applicants had committed or participated in any act prohibited
under Sections 4 or 5 of the said Act, thus, the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie made
out against the Applicants. It is lastly submitted that
Applicants No.1 to 4 are in custody since 04.07.2026 and
Applicants No.5 and 6 are in custody since 30.07.2026, the
trial is likely to take quite some time for its conclusion,
therefore, they may be released on bail.
4. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application
and submits that the allegations against the Applicants are
serious in nature and the material collected during
investigation prima facie connects them with the alleged
offence. It is further submitted that the investigation is
complete and charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court and therefore, considering the nature and
gravity of the offence and the material available on record,
the Applicants are not entitled to be released on bail.

6
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
5.
perused the case diary carefully.
Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel
6.
for the parties, the nature of allegations, the material available
in the case diary, the fact that the Applicants are in custody
since 04.07.2026 and 30.07.2026 respectively, the
investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been
filed and further considering that the trial is likely to take
considerable time for its conclusion, without further
commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is
of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the
application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicants is allowed
and it is directed that they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and one
surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant/s shall file an undertaking to the
effect that he/they shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case
of default of this condition, it shall be open for
the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail
and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant/s shall remain present before
the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his/their counsel. In case

7
of his/their absence, without sufficient cause, the
trial court may proceed against him/them under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant/s misuse/s the liberty
of bail during trial and in order to secure his/their
presence, proclamation under Section 84 of
BNSS. is issued and the applicant/s fail/s to
appear before the Court on the date fixed in
such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against him/them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant/s shall remain present, in
person, before the trial court on the dates fixed
for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge
and (iii) recording of statement under Section
351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court
absence of the applicant/s is deliberate or
without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for
the trial court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him/them in
accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to
the trial Court concerned for necessary information and
compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Priya