High CourtsSingle Bench

Jahid And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 May 2025 · Citation: (2025) 05 UK CK 0798

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
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 556 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 · 473 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This Application has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2025, registered at Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

As per the First Information Report dated 19.05.2025, the police party received a secret information that Shami and Jahid are slaughtering a cow in the forest. The police party raided the spot. They observed that two persons (the present applicants) were present on the spot. Seeing the police, they managed to escape from the spot. The police party recovered 130 kg. beef and other articles from the spot.

3.

Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

4.

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They were not present on the spot. The cow was not slaughtered by them. The alleged beef was not recovered from their possession. They are permanent residents of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding. They are not convicted persons.

5.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally. He submitted that the applicants were recognized by Constable Vikram and Constable Mukesh.

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 applicants Jahid and Mohd. Salim Ahmed alias Shami, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/ - and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions: -

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

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

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

(iv) Applicants shall not leave the country without the 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 prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.