TH NOVEMBER v. State of Uttarakhand

: Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing) Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant 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.376 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

As per the First Information Report dated

24.10.2025, a secret information was received by the police that Ikrar (applicant), Abdurrahman alias Dulla, Imran alias Tailor and Chhota are slaughtering a cow. The police raided the spot on the said information. They noticed that four persons were present on the spot. They recovered 210 Kg. beef and other articles from the spot. The present applicant and one co-accused 1 Abdurrahman were arrested, while two persons managed to escape from the spot.

Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate contended that the applicant was not present on the spot. Nothing was recovered from his possession. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. He has been falsely implicated by the police. He is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He is in custody since

24.10.2025, and, the co-accused Abdurrahman alias Dulla has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 11.11.2025 in the First Bail Application No.2088 of 2025.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, 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 in detention during 2 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 merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.