High CourtsSingle Bench

Mukarram vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 18 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 UK CK 0094

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, 5, 11 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 958 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 · 431 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 under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 in connection with the Case Crime No.218 of 2022 (Criminal Case No.248 of 2022), registered at police station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

2.

As per the First Information Report, informant Ashish Kumar, Sub-Inspector, was busy in his patrolling duty along with other police personnel. They raided the farm of one Irshad on a secret information. Seven persons were present on the spot. Police party recovered 300 Kg. beef and cutting tools from the spot. Three persons were arrested by the police. Four persons managed to escape from the spot. The arrested persons told the police in their confessional statements that Mukarram (present applicant) was also among those who fled from the spot.

3.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the co-accused persons. He was not present on the spot. He has no criminal history. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding and charge-sheet has already been filed before the Court concerned, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The said offence is triable by Magistrate, and, three co-accused persons of the similar role have been granted anticipatory bail.

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, applicant- Mukarram is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

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

7.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

8.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.958 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.