HARSIMRAN SINGH SETH, J. - (1.)The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 42 dtd. 16/3/2021 registered under Ss. 5/13(2) and 17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamyardhan Act, 2015, Ss. 11, 59, 60 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Ss. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rojka Meo, District Nuh, Haryana.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has joined investigation in terms of order passed by this Court dtd. 29/10/2021. Order dtd. 29/10/2021 is as under:-
"Present petition has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.42 dtd. 16/3/2021 registered under Ss. 5/13(2) and 17 of Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamyardhan Act, 2015, Ss. 11, 59, 60 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Ss. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Rojka Meo, District Nuh, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations alleged against the petitioner in the FIR, are, prima facie, false for the reason that no explanation has come forward that how the petitioner managed to escape from the site when the raid was conducted on the basis of the secret information. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner as of now as allegedly, everything has already been recovered from the site. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused of the petitioner namely Sakir, against whom also the similar allegations have been alleged, has already been extended the benefit of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding CRM-M-23778-2021 on 19/7/2021.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court, keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

(3.)Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are also other cases involving the same allegations and therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail may kindly be declined. Learned counsel for the respondent-State though concedes that the allegations against the petitioner and the co-accused Sakir are identical, who has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail except that the petitioner was allegedly driving the vehicle.