High CourtsSingle Bench

Anees vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 May 2025 · Citation: (2025) 05 UK CK 0773

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 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 517 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 · 497 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Application has been filed by the applicant Anees for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 456 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 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2.

According to the First Information Report, on a secret information, received by the police party on 26.04.2025, they observed that four persons were coming with a cow. The cow was being taken away tied with a rope. Police party arrested one co-accused, namely, Gulsher alias Kale. Police recovered axe, knife and other articles from the spot. Three persons managed to escape from the spot. Gulsher alias Kale told the police that he, Anees (applicant), Shahbas and Suleman alias Advani brought the cow to be slaughtered.

3.

Heard Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.

4.

Ms. Shazia Parveen, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the co-accused Gulsher alias Kale. Applicant was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, two co-accused of the similar role, namely, Suleman alias Advani and Shahbas have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

5.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder, 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 Anees, 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.