Supreme Court Restores Anticipatory Bail, Questions MCOCA Invocation Against Man Named Only in Co-Accused's Disclosure

The case, C.R. No. 770/2025, concerns the transport of meat of bovine animals (bulls) by three accused and was registered under Sections 5-B, 5-C, 9 and 9-A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 325 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (para 2). After the other accused were interrogated, the appellant was added as Accused No. 4, alleged to have sold them the meat; he apprehends arrest (para 3). The Bombay High Court granted him anticipatory bail on 03.02.2026. That order was cancelled by an order of 20.02.2026, after the Joint Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai approved the invocation of Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA the same day (para 4).

The order is brief. Taking the facts and circumstances before it, the Court said it was unable to comprehend the invocation of MCOCA's provisions against the appellant (para 5). It pointed to what the record showed: he had been arrayed as an accused in the FIR solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure of his name; the allegation was that he had sold the meat in question; and there was no seizure or other material to substantiate that allegation against him (para 5). For those reasons it set aside the impugned order and restored the High Court's order of 03.02.2026 granting anticipatory bail (para 6). Because the cancellation had followed the MCOCA approval (para 4), the Court framed the protection to cover it: the appellant is to continue on the bail bonds already executed and, if arrested pursuant to the invocation of the MCOC Act, is to be released on the same terms (para 6). The order does not quash the approval of 20.02.2026, does not discuss the ingredients of an organised crime offence or the Act's bail provisions, and cites no decision. The appeal was disposed of (para 7).