Five Buffalo Calves In Crowded Pickup: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Driver, Cleaner And Alleged Buyer

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 216/2026, registered for offences under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Police intercepted a pick-up truck carrying five buffalo calves in a congested manner.

Jaypal Sahu was driving and Rajendra Yadav was the conductor; during investigation, they named Dharnidhar @ Vinod Yadav as the purchaser of the cattle.

The applicants maintained that the cattle were being transported for agricultural purposes, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, alleging transportation for slaughter and pointing to two criminal antecedents of one applicant.

The Court considered its power to grant regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in proceedings concerning alleged offences under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising its bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicants’ antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period spent in custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

No precedent was cited.

The Court weighed the allegations and the State’s opposition against the applicants’ custody since 23 and 24 September 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in concluding the trial.

It also considered that Dharnidhar and Rajendra had no criminal antecedents, while Jaypal’s two antecedents were not of a similar nature.

On that overall assessment, the Court found the applicants entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them to remain available for police interrogation when required, not to influence persons acquainted with the case, and not to act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail applications and would not affect the trial Court’s independent determination on the merits.