High CourtsSingle Bench

Isran And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 UK CK 0072

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, 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. 786 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

13 paragraphs · 441 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present 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. 639 of 2023, registered at police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar under Section 3/11 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.

Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicants (through video conferencing) and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

As per the First Information Report dated 30.08.2023, informant Sharad Singh, Sub-Inspector, along with other police personnel was busy in patrolling duty. On a secret information, they raided the spot. There were four persons present on the spot. Seeing the police, they managed to escape from the spot. Police party recovered two live cows and cutting tools. All the four persons present at the spot were identified by the police informer.

4.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, contended that applicants were not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from their possession. They are permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding. Applicants have no criminal history, and, the said offences are triable by Magistrate.

5.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he submits that the applicants have no criminal history.

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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Isran, Rihan, Taufeek and Faizan, they shall be released on Anticipatory Bail on furnishing their personal bonds of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer with 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.

8.

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.

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 786 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.