Bail granted to accused under CG Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act for lack of criminal antecedents.

On May 16, 2026, a complainant intercepted a vehicle (MH-35-AJ-3679) near Damakhda village based on secret information regarding illegal cattle transport

Upon inquiry, the applicants were found transporting five cattle allegedly destined for a slaughterhouse

An FIR (Crime No. 210/2026) was registered at Police Station Simga for violations of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, and the applicants were arrested

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail, contending false implication based on suspicion and noting their period of judicial custody since the date of the incident

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and their lack of criminal antecedents

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantively, the case involved Sections 4, 6, 10, and 11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, which regulate and prohibit the slaughter and illegal transport of agricultural cattle

Additionally, the court referenced procedural safeguards under Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to order), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 351 (attendance of accused) of the BNSS to impose bail conditions

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically looking at the nature of the allegations involving the transport of five cattle

In determining the fitness for bail, the Court weighed the duration of the applicants' custody (since May 16, 2026) against the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was the absence of any previous criminal antecedents against either applicant

The Court balanced the State’s opposition—which focused on the statutory violations—against the protected liberty of the applicants, concluding that the merits of the case and the lack of prior records warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of granting bail

The application was allowed, and the Court ordered the release of Deva Dhruwe and Shivdayal Lilhare upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each

The bail was made subject to strict conditions: an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during trial stages (charge framing and statements), and a warning that any violation of liberty or failure to appear would trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita