High CourtsSingle Bench

Afjal vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 June 2025 · Citation: (2025) 06 UK CK 0507

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttarakhand Protection Of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 — Section 3, 5, 11 · Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 — Section 3, 11(1) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 646 Of 2025
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

13 paragraphs · 476 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed by the applicant Afjal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 610 of 2025, registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and Section 3 read with Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2.

As per the First Information Report dated 07.06.2025, a secret information was received by the police that Afjal (applicant) and others are slaughtering a cow. The police party raided the spot. They observed that four persons were present on the spot. Seeing the police, all the four persons managed to escape from the spot. A person present on the spot was identified by Constables as Afjal (applicant). The police party recovered 190 kg. beef, one live cow that was tied with a rope and other articles from the spot.

3.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the respondent.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding.

5.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A., has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

6.

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.

7.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Afjal, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/ - and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions: -

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(iii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

8.

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