High CourtsSingle Bench

Shahnajar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 7 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 UK CK 0043

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 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 353 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 528 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 · 400 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

This is an Application, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of Anticipatory Bail in connection with the First Information Report No. 280 of 2023, registered at police station Kotwali Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. assisted by Mrs. Shivali Joshi, learned Brief Holder for State.

3.

As per the First Information Report dated 13.05.2023, on a secret information, police party raided the spot. Six persons were present on the spot. 312 Kg of beef along with cutting tools were recovered from the spot. One co-accused Meharban was arrested. Five other persons managed to escape from the spot. The co-accused Meharban stated in his confessional statement that he along with Shahnajar (present applicant) and other co-accused persons had slaughtered two cows on the spot.

4.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been implicated in the present matter by the co-accused Meharban. Applicant was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Applicant has no criminal history, and, he is a permanent resident of District Haridwar.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

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, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, namely, Shahnajar, he will be released on Anticipatory Bail on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.

8.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates the said condition, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

9.

Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 528 of 2023) stands disposed of accordingly.