The State pointed to five earlier cases of a similar nature and said the accused was likely to indulge in similar acts if released. In a Gujarat Cow Meat Case, the Supreme Court has answered that antecedents are not definitive proof of guilt, and granted regular bail after more than eight months in custody. The allegations remain untested.
New Delhi: A man accused of procuring and storing 23 kg of cow meat in Gujarat is to be released on regular bail, the Supreme Court has ordered, setting aside the order under challenge and observing that his five earlier cases of a similar nature would not, by themselves, establish guilt in the present Gujarat Cow Meat Case [Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol v. State of Gujarat].
The order was passed on October 14, 2026 by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, which granted leave in SLP (Crl.) No. 13280 of 2026, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2026.
The State’s objection
Counsel for the State of Gujarat vehemently opposed bail. She told the Bench that the trial was at its fag end and would be concluded within about two months. She also submitted that the appellant had five antecedents of a similar nature and was likely to indulge in similar acts if released, and sought dismissal of the appeal.
Charges, and an arrest on January 3
The appellant, Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol, faces charges 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 (BNS), and Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act.
The prosecution alleges that he illegally 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 that he fled when police raided the spot. He was arrested on January 3, 2026, and had remained in custody since.
The appellant’s answer
Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and presumptions. He pointed out that the appellant was not arrested at the spot, that the meat was recovered from an open space accessible to everyone, that the plot did not belong to the appellant, and that the Swift car allegedly used to transport the meat was not his either.
Custody, the open plot and the stage of the trial
The Bench took note of the period of custody, the place of recovery and the stage of the case, and held that continued incarceration was not warranted:
“…noticing that appellant has been in custody for more than eight months, as also the fact that alleged meat was recovered from an open plot, of course near the house of the appellant, and charge-sheet having been filed and trial has already commenced, his continued incarceration would not be warranted.”
Antecedents are not proof
On the State’s reliance on the earlier cases, the Court said the prosecution would have to prove its case through witnesses:
“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.”
Release, on terms to be fixed
Making clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits, the Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and directed that the appellant be released on regular bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the jurisdictional court.
The allegations against the appellant are yet to be tested at trial. The Supreme Court has expressed no view on the merits, and he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Why the order matters
The order restates a settled bail principle: criminal antecedents are relevant when a court weighs the risk of release, but they cannot stand in for proof of the offence actually charged. Guilt in each case has to be established by evidence led at trial, and a record of earlier cases does not relieve the prosecution of that burden.
The Bench also gave weight to factors that commonly tip the balance in favour of liberty once investigation is over: a long period in custody, a charge-sheet already filed and a trial in progress. With the State itself saying the trial would end within two months, the Court found no reason to keep the appellant in jail meanwhile, leaving the jurisdictional court to frame suitable conditions.
Case Title: Mohammad Aarif Abdul Razak Samol v. State of Gujarat [Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13280 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Nadeem B. Mansuri, Advocate, with Minhajuddin Moinuddin Shaikh, AOR, for the appellant; Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, with Adarsh Dubey and Rahul Suresh, Advocates, for the State