High CourtsSingle Bench

Nadeem vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 1 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 UK CK 0006

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. 986 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

14 paragraphs · 450 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 the Case Crime No.858 of 2023, registered at police station Laksar, District Haridwar under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

As per the allegations of the First Information Report dated 17.10.2023, on a secret information, informant-Sharad Singh, Sub-Inspector, along with other police personnel raided the spot at 1.25 hrs. Four persons were present in the house of Parvez (co-accused). One person managed to escape from the spot. Police party recovered 60kg of beef and other articles from the house of Parvez (co-accused). Applicant was recognized by constable Mandeep in the torch light.

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that applicant has been falsely implicated by the police party. He was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The place of recovery does not belong to the present applicant. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding, and, the said offence is triable by Magistrate.

5.

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

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, applicant- Nadeem 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 cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required;

(ii) In case, charge-sheet is filed, applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

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

8.

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

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.986 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.