Chandigarh, Aug. 26 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea of a Mewat man, accused of transporting cows for slaughter, observing that it can have serious repercussions on public peace. "The present offence, apart from its legal implications, is laden with emotional and cultural undertones, given the unique status of the cow in Indian society. This court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that in a pluralistic society like ours, certain acts, while otherwise private, can have severe repercussions on public peace when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a significant population group," the bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil observed while denying relief to the petitioner. The FIR against the petitioner Aasif was registered on April 3, 2025, in Sadar police station, Nuh, under Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act and Prevention of Cruelty Act against the petitioner and two others. Allegations were of recovery of two cows from a canter, kept in a deplorable condition, allegedly being transported to Rajasthan for slaughter. The police had claimed that he had been involved in atleast three similar FIRs in the past and was apprehended from the place of occurrence. Thus, his custodial interrogation is imperative for a fair and effective investigation. The court recorded that the offence alleged in the present FIR deals with the allegation of slaughtering a cow in conscious defiance of existing law and in utter disregard to the sentiments of the community at large. It is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is not a first- time offender and allegedly was involved in three other FIRs pertaining to similar offences. "In those cases, the petitioner was granted the benefit of bail as a gesture of judicial trust, which appears to have been misused, rather than respected," the court further recorded, adding that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, intended to protect innocent individuals from motivated or arbitrary arrest not to provide "sanctuary to those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity". The court also took note of police submissions that the possibility of the petitioner indulging in similar unlawful activities in the future, or tampering with the investigation, cannot be ruled out. "This court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty. But where such liberty is demonstrably misused, and where the petitioner's conduct is indicative of recidivism, the law must respond with firmness," the court further added while recording that in wake of his criminal antecedents and the grave and serious nature of the allegations in the present FIR, he was being denied the interim protection....