Parity and absence of criminal antecedents justify regular bail in cattle preservation offenses.

On 09.02.2026, acting on a tip-off regarding the illegal and cruel transportation of cattle, police intercepted the applicant and three others in a forest route near village Salheghota Badkatal

The accused were allegedly herding cattle toward Mungeli market without valid documentation and subjecting the animals to physical assault

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the C.G. Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004

The applicant approached the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, asserting his innocence and noting that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the period of incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which regulates the power of the High Court to grant bail

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, concerning the prohibition of slaughter and regulation of transportation of agricultural cattle

Additionally, the Court referenced procedural repercussions for non-appearance under Section 269 (contempt of lawful authority) and Section 209 (non-appearance in response to proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the accused's statement

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations against the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal history

Although the State opposed bail on the grounds that the investigation was ongoing and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, the Court found merit in the applicant's plea for parity, as a co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court on 24.03.2026

The Court further reasoned that since the applicant had been in custody since 17.04.2025 and the trial was expected to be protracted, continued detention was not warranted

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and must comply with all trial proceedings or face action under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS