JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.(Oral):- This is an application moved by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.11 dated 22.1.2010 under Sections 279/336 IPC read with Sections 3/8, 4A/8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 2/80 of Animal Cruelty Act, P.S. DLF, Phase II, Gurgaon. FIR in the present case, reads as under:- “To SHO Sahib, PS DLF Phase II, Gurgaon, Jai Hind. Today, I ASI alongwith C. the Partap 2694 alongwith C. Surender Singh 1339, driver of Govt. Gypsy No.HR-55-7602 were present at Sirhol Border Toll Plaza for the purpose of Nakabandi then a informer informed that few persons in a pic up while coloured No.HR28GA-0273 take cows for slaughtering to Delhi. That today also they are taking cows to Delhi for slaughtering. If strict nakabandi is made then they can be apprehended with cows and vehicle. That on believing the information of the infomant as true, tight nakabandi was done and after some time a pick up vehicle was seen coming in fast speed from the side of Gurgaon and on seeing the police party, turned back the vehicle towards Gurgaon in a fast speed at 4.20 AM from toll tax. I alongwith others chased the same in govt. vehicle then near Ambiance Mall, the vehicle hit the divider and ASI alongwith others reached near the vehicle then two persons were seen running away after alighting from the vehicle, they were chased by the police but they were successful in running away due to fog. When ASI went near the vehicle and saw then he found that there were five cows among these two cows were already slaughtered and rest three were alive, which were weak. That the police took the cows and the vehicle pick up HR28GA-0273 in possession vide fard. The driver whose name is not known and other person whose name is also not known while driving the vehicle in fast speed and after slaughtering two cows and taking three for slaughtering at Delhi border, has committed in offence u/s 279/336 IPC, 4A/8, 3/8, 2/80 C.S. Act and tehrir is being sent for registration of the case...” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Vehicle No.HR-28GA-0273 was sold by the petitioner to Ali Mohd. and the vehicle in question has already been released in favour of Ali Mohd. on superdari. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Vehicle No.HR-28GA-0273 was sold by the petitioner to Ali Mohd. and the vehicle in question has already been released in favour of Ali Mohd. on superdari. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that there was dispute between the petitioner – accused and Ali Mohd pursuant to the vehicle in question and the petitioner - accused had taken back the vehicle in question from the possession of Ali Mohd in whose favour it was directed to be released by the Court on superdari. However, fact remains that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. 4. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on furnishing his personal bond and one surety of Rs.20,000/-, each, subject to the conditions provided u/s 438(2) of the Code. ---------0.B.S.0------------