High CourtsSingle Bench

Paravas Ali Alias Chhota And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 26 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 UK CK 0106

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. 842 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

13 paragraphs · 445 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.144 of 2022, registered at police station Jhabrera, District Haridwar.

2.

As per the prosecution’s case, informant Hakam Singh, Sub-Inspector, along with other police personnel was busy in patrolling duty on 17.02.2022. Seeing the police, two or three unknown persons who were present on the spot, managed to escape. The police party recovered 40 Kg. beef, a knife and other articles from the spot.

3.

First Information Report was registered against unknown persons. The name of the present applicants came to light during the investigation. Charge-sheet has been filed.

4.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They were not present on the spot. The name of the applicants have come to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused Furkan. Nothing was recovered from their possession. Applicants have no criminal history. They are permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding, and, charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

5.

On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A., has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application on the ground that the name of the present applicants have come to light in the confessional statement of the co-accused and in the statements of the public witnesses.

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, applicants- Paravas Ali alias Chhota and Khursheed are directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

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

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

(iii) 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 concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No.842 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.