High CourtsSingle Bench

Taseen vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 26 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 UK CK 0103

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Uttarakhand Protection Of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 — Section 3, 5, 11 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 332, 353
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2098 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

9 paragraphs · 350 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 407 of 2023, registered at police station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 332 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.

As per the First Information Report dated 26.07.2023, informant Sharad Singh, Sub-Inspector, along with other police personnel was present in the area of his police station. An information was received by him from the police informer. On the secret information, police party raided the spot. Present applicant and two other persons were present on the spot. When the police party tried to arrest the applicant, he assaulted them with an axe. Police party recovered 135 Kg of beef, cutting tools and other articles from the spot. Applicant was arrested at 11:50 hrs.

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4.

Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. He has no criminal history. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding, and, the said offences are triable by Magistrate.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application.

6.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

7.

The Bail Application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicant – Taseen be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.