High CourtsSingle Bench

Wakil vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 June 2025 · Citation: (2025) 06 UK CK 0443

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttarakhand Protection Of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 — Section 3, 5, 11 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 529 Of 2025
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

14 paragraphs · 489 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

2.

According to the First Information Report dated 18.05.2025, the police party received a secret information that one Wakil (present applicant) has kept beef in his house. The police party raided the spot. They recovered 150 kg. beef from the spot. They arrested four persons Zulfiqar, Imtiyaj, Irshad and Aziz. Wakil (present applicant) fled from the spot.

3.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.

4.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, for the applicant submitted that as per the First Information Report the cow was slaughtered somewhere else and four persons were arrested. They were brought to the applicant’s house with the alleged beef. Thereafter, the police showed recovery of the alleged beef from his house. There was no independent witness of the alleged recovery, although, the place of incident is situated in a highly crowded place and no effort was made to associate any independent witness.

5.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his abscoding.

6.

Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

7.

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.

8.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Wakil, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

9.

It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.