Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Protection in a Dispute Caused Over Cow

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

In this case, the police took the petitioners into custody after they had a physical fight with the Respondents. This fight resulted resulting in physical injuries. Subsequently, the Respondents filed an FIR. The petitioners were out on interim protection. The petitioners approached the Court to make the order absolute.

Brief Facts of the Case

As per the respondents, one of the respondents, Yog Raj, a pick-up driver was transporting a cow. The cow was being transported to another respondent no.2, Hoshiar Singh. The respondent had got the cow from the Respondent No.3, Lucky Pahalwan after a deal happened between them. 

Respondent No.1, Yog Raj claims that while he was transporting the cow, he stopped in between to relieve himself. During that time, the petitioners asked the respondent to remove the barricades guarding the back of the vehicle. After that, the petitioners held the respondent. The petitioners injured him by beating him. Further, the petitioners did the same to other respondents, who came to help Yog Raj after he called them for help. 

Subsequently, the respondents launched an FIR against the petitioners. Following the FIR, the police arrested the petitioners and took them into custody. Consequently, the police charged the petitioners under several sections of the IPC. The sections include 307, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 34. These charges included an attempt to Murder, Battery, Criminal Intimidation and Damage of Property. 

However, the petitioners claim that the feud took place after the respondent left the cow outside their house. They asked the respondent about the cow. This resulted in an argument. The argument then escalated into a physical fight. As of now, the court granted interim protection to the petitioner. The Petitioners have prayed to make it absolute. 

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioners have claimed that they have been falsely indicted and are innocent. They further claim to be fully cooperating with the investigation. They have helped in recovering the weapons used, for evidentiary purpose. Further, they have also filed a counter FIR for the same case. 

Respondent’s Argument

The Counsel for the respondents asked that the Court place stringent conditions on the petitioners for Bail. It also prayed that the Court ensures constant cooperation from the petitioners. It further prayed to the Court to make sure that the petitioners should not manipulate the investigation in any manner.  

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the allegations put on the petitioners are yet to proven. For this purpose, relevant evidence is required. Further, the petitioners have also filed a Cross FIR. The court observed that the petitioners have cooperated with the police and the investigation. Also, the petitioners are permanent residents of the place and hence cannot elope.

Court’s Judgment

Based on the aforesaid statements, the Court made the interim protection of the petitioners absolute. The Court ordered the petitioners to adhere to the conditions enforced by the Court. The petitioners cannot influence the investigation in any manner and cannot tamper the evidence. Further, they have to ensure full cooperation and keep the court updated about their whereabouts.

The Court also held that in case of contempt of any conditions, the respondents can apply to cancel the bail.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -