High CourtsSingle Bench

Arif vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 February 2023 · Citation: (2023) 02 UK CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttarakhand Protection Of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 — Section 3, 5, 11 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 252 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

11 paragraphs · 392 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present Bail Application has been filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.05 of 2023, registered with Police Station Clement Town, District Dehradun for the offence under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

According to the First Information Report dated 13.01.2023, 56 kilograms beef along with cutting tools were recovered at the spot and the present applicant was arrested at the recovery site.

4.

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. There was no public witness at the time of the alleged recovery. The alleged recovery was planted. The applicant has no criminal history. He is in custody since 13.01.2023, and, he is a permanent resident of District Dehradun.

5.

Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State, opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that according the instructions received by him from the Investigating Officer, the applicant has no criminal history.

6.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

7.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8.

The bail application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant - Arif be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10.

Registry is directed to send a soft-copy of this bail order immediately by e-mail to the applicant-prisoner through the concerned Jail Superintendant for necessary action.