Islam v. State of Uttarakhand

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant Islam is in judicial custody for the offence under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 in Case Crime No 314 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

According to the First Information Report dated 05.08.2025, the police party raided the spot on a secret information and recovered 100 kg. beef and other articles from the spot. Applicant was arrested.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 1

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The alleged recoveries are totally false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recoveries. This fact also makes the police story doubtful. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the 2 merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.