New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man accused of illegally procuring and storing cow meat under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011, holding that his continued incarceration was not warranted after more than eight months in custody, and that the existence of antecedents is “not definitive proof of guilt” in the present case.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed the appeal of Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol against the Gujarat High Court’s refusal of bail, by an order of 14.10.2026 in a Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 13280 of 2026.
The appellant was arraigned for offences under Sections 5(1), 6(b), 8(2), 8(4) and 10 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011, Section 325 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act. The prosecution alleged that he procured 23 kg of cow meat, transported it in a Swift car and stored it in an open plot near his house for retail sale, and fled when the police raided the spot. He was arrested on 03.01.2026 and has been in custody since.
Opposing bail, the State submitted that the trial was at the fag end and would conclude within two months, and that the appellant had five antecedents of a similar nature and, if released, was likely to indulge in similar acts. The appellant argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and presumptions, that he was not arrested at the spot, that the meat was recovered from an open plot accessible to all and not owned by him, and that the Swift car did not belong to him.
The Bench took into account that the appellant had been in custody for over eight months, that the meat was recovered from an open plot, “of course near the house of the appellant”, and that the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial had commenced. It held:
“As to the complicity of appellant in the alleged procurement and storage of meat, requires to be established by the prosecution by examining their witnesses. Merely because the appellant’s antecedents are there, would not be definitive proof of guilt in the present case.”
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to regular bail. It set aside the High Court’s order and directed his release on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional court may deem fit to impose.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Nadeem B. Mansuri, Advocate, and Mr. Minhajuddin Moinuddin Shaikh, AOR.
For the Respondent-State: Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, with Mr. Adarsh Dubey and Mr. Rahul Suresh, Advocates.
Case Title: Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13280 of 2026)
