High CourtsSingle Bench

Naim vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 UK CK 0105

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 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 332, 353
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1966 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

10 paragraphs · 359 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.407 of 2023, registered at police station S.I.D.C.U.L., District Haridwar.

2.

Applicant is in judicial custody under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 332 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

On a secret information of police informer, the police party raided the spot on 26.07.2023. Three persons, including the applicant, were present on the spot. Police party recovered 135 kg. beef, four cows and cutting equipment from the spot.  When the police party tried to arrest the applicant, he assaulted them. He was arrested.

4.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

5.

Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, Advocate, appearing for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery was planted. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. The said offences are triable by Magistrate, and, a co-accused of the similar role, namely, Taseen, has been granted bail by this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However he has conceded that there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

7.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant – Naim be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.