High CourtsSingle Bench

Irshad And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 UK CK 0114

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · 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
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 852 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 · 448 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail in connection with the Case Crime No.510 of 2022, registered at police station Kaliyar Shareef, District Haridwar under Section 3/5/11 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.

As per the First Information Report dated 07.10.2022, informant Ashish Kumar, Sub-Inspector, was busy in patrolling duty along with other police personnel. On a secret information, they raided the spot, enclosure of the applicant no.2. Police party recovered 310 Kg. beef, seven live cows, ten live buffaloes and cutting tools from the spot. At the time of the raid, four persons were present on the spot. Co-accused Tyab was arrested by the police. Three persons managed to escape from the spot. Co-accused Tyab stated in his confessional statements that he along with Irshad and Shahanavaj (present applicants) were slaughtering the cows.

3.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicants were not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from their possession. There was no public witness present at the time of the alleged recovery. The name of the present applicants have come to light in the confessional statements of the co-accused. Applicants have no criminal history. They are permanent resident of District Haridwar, and, the present alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

4.

Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A., has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application.

5.

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.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants- Irshad and Shahanavaj are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

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

(ii) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required;

(iii) Applicants shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Trial Court.

7.

It is clarified that if the applicants misuse or violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

8.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.852 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.