AAYAN AHMAD vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.10.28
10:50:25 +0530
1

CGHC010365182026 2026:CGHC:45038
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8751 of 2026
 Aayan Ahmad S/o Shri Mohd Asgar, Aged About 21 Years R/o.
Village - Gumla, Punjabi Gali, Islampur In-Front Of Akil Medical
Stores, Thana - Gumla, Distt - Gumla (Jharkhand)
... Applicant
versus
 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
Police Station - Batouli, Distt. -Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
26.10.2026
1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular
bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.08/2026,
registered by Police Station Batouli, District : Sarguja (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 281 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 r/w Sections 4, 6 and 10 of Chhattisgarh Agricultural
Cattle Preservation Act, 2005 and Sections 11(1)(A) and 11(1)(D) of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2
2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Police Station Batouli
received information about an abandoned pick-up vehicle bearing
registration No. JH 01 FY 8400 and 13 cattle tied nearby in poor
condition. The police rushed to the spot and seized the said
vehicle. During the course of the investigation, the owner of the
said vehicle, Harendra Mahto, stated that he had sold the vehicle
to the present applicant.
3) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case without verification
of the genuineness of the agreement produced by Harendra
Mahto. He further submits that the cattle were healthy, were being
used for agricultural purposes, and there is nothing on record to
establish that they were intended for slaughter. He also submits
that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.08.2026,
and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time.
Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the
bail application and submits that the applicant has not disclosed a
criminal antecedent of a similar nature pertaining to the year 2025
in this bail application. He further submits that the existence of a
criminal case of a similar nature makes him a habitual offender;
therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the
present case.

3
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6) In the present bail application, the applicant has contended that
the cattle were meant for agricultural purposes. However, it is
undisputed that the cattle recovered near the abandoned pick-up
vehicle were found in a deplorable condition. Furthermore, the
medical report indicates that they were not in good health, thus,
the allegation that the cattle were being transported for slaughter
cannot be ruled out at this stage.
7) Pertinently, the applicant has not disclosed any criminal
antecedents in this bail application, whereas the learned State
counsel has contended that Crime No. 260/2025 was registered
against the applicant at P.S. Jashpur for offences punishable
under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle
Preservation Act, 2004. Nonetheless, the primary objectives of
examining an accused person's criminal antecedents during bail
proceedings are:
 To assess the likelihood of compliance with bail
conditions and ensure the accused will not flee or
jump bail;
 To determine whether there is a habitual pattern of
committing similar or grave offenses; and
 To evaluate the risk of evidence tampering,
obstruction of the ongoing investigation, or witness
intimidation.

4
The existence of 01 pending criminal antecedent of an identical
nature pertaining to year 2025 underscores a persistent pattern of
offending, raising a grave apprehension of offense repetition if he
is enlarged on bail.
8) Also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in
Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , reported in
(2022) 8 SCC 559 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground
that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
9) Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a