High CourtsSingle Bench

Sahrukh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 27 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 UK CK 0116

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, 6, 11 · Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960 — Section 3, 11 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 38 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 · 488 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Second Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 3/6/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in connection with the Case Crime No. 225 of 2017 (Criminal Case No. 433 of 2018), registered at police station Raiwala, District Dehradun.

2.

The First Anticipatory Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.09.2023 granting liberty to the applicants to file a fresh Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per law.

3.

On 10.12.2017, informant Anil Kumar Joshi, In-charge Inspector, was present in Raiwala police station area along with other police personnel to prevent cow smuggling. An attempt was made to stop a vehicle (Tata Super ACC No. UK08AC-3646) on a secret information. Mantzeer, driver of the said vehicle, tried to run away. Police recovered four cows and three calves from the said vehicle. Mantzeer was arrested. He stated that the said cows and calves had been ordered by Sahrukh and Fareed alias Sheru (present applicants) for slaughter.

4.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, submits that applicants were not present at the time of the alleged recovery. The said vehicle does not belong to the applicants. Applicants are not butchers by profession. They have been falsely implicated by the co-accused Mantzeer. Applicants are permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of their absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. The said offences are triable by Magistrate, and, the applicants have no criminal history.

5.

On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A., has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application.

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- Sahrukh and Fareed alias Sheru 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 indirectly 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 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.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 38 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.