High CourtsSingle Bench

Aasif vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 UK CK 0085

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Uttarakhand Protection Of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 — Section 3, 5, 11 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 25 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 446 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Second Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail in connection with Case Crime No. 326 of 2023, registered at Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

As per FIR, informant Anurodh Vyas, Sub-Inspector, was busy on patrolling duty along with other police personnel on 02.05.2023. On a secret information, they raided the spot. They recovered 350 Kg of beef, cutting tools and a weighing scale kept under a dilapidated tin shed. Five persons were present on the spot. They managed to escape from the spot. Constable- Sushil Kumar identified the present applicant.

3.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicants through video conferencing.

4.

Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

5.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, has submitted that in the First Anticipatory Bail Application this fact was not mentioned that the applicant has no relation with the place of alleged recovery. Therefore, applicant has filed the present Second Anticipatory Bail Application after withdrawing the First Anticipatory Bail Application.

6.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated in the present matter. He was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. Applicant has not been convicted by any Court. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and, a co-accused Sonu alias Rehman has already been granted bail by this Court.

7.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the Second Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

8.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

9.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Aasif, he will be released on Anticipatory Bail on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case and he shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Trial Court.

10.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the said conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

11.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 25 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.