High CourtsSingle Bench

Naved vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 UK CK 0035

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
Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 48 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 · 497 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Second 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.94 of 2021, registered at police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

The First Anticipatory Bail Application (No.931 of 2023) was dismissed on 20.10.2023 as withdrawn granting liberty to the applicant to file a fresh Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in accordance with law.

3.

As per the First Information Report dated 25.01.20021, informant Ranveer Singh Chauhan, Sub-Inspector, was busy in his patrolling duty along with other police personnel. On receiving an information from the police informer that a cow was being slaughtered in a Mango Orchard, a raid was conducted by the police party. Six persons were present on the spot. They were identified by the police party. The present applicant was also among those persons. Seeing the police, four persons, including the present applicant, managed to escape from the spot. Police party recovered five quintals beef, three axes, three knives and other articles from the spot. Two co-accused persons were arrested.

4.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

5.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He was not present on the spot. The alleged recovery place does not belong to the applicant. Applicant was granted interim relief during the investigation in the WPCRL No.1282 of 2021. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He has no criminal antecedents. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, the said offence is triable by Magistrate.

6.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

7.

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.

8.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant-Naved 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.

9.

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.

10.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No.48 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.