Rahman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.293 of 2022, under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 03.04.2022, police raided a premises and recovered beef and other articles. The FIR records that the applicant and the co-accused managed to escape from the place of incident.

It is the case of the applicant that nothing was recovered from him; he has not committed any offence; there is no independent witness of the recovery; no case is made out against the applicant.

Learned State Counsel would submit that no separate objection is required to be filed, as such. The anticipatory bail application may be decided based on the material available on record. He would submit that when the police raided the premises, the applicant managed to escape.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that this is a case, in which the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.

(iii) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the court. The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicant does not have passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the court concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i) & (ii) above.