| |
CDJ 2025 Utt HC 119
|
| Court : High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Case No : First Bail Application No.1978 Of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA |
| Parties : Imran Versus State of Uttarakhand |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Bilal Ahmed, Advocate. For the Respondent: Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder. |
| Date of Judgment : 30-12-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 - Section 11 -
Comparative Citation:
2025 UHC 11652, |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007
- Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
- Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Personal liberty
- Article 21
- False implication
- Sureties
3. Summary:
The applicant Imran, in judicial custody for alleged offences under the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, sought bail. He contended that the police recovery was fabricated, he has no prior conviction, and he is a permanent resident of Saharanpur, reducing any flight risk. The respondent opposed bail. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and detention is an exception, invoking Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty. After weighing the arguments and circumstances, the court found no justification for continued detention. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and two reliable sureties.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Applicant- Imran is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 3, Section 6 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in Case Crime No.330 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.
2. According to the First Information Report dated 29.09.2025, the police raided the spot on a secret information. They noticed that six persons were present on the spot. Seeing the police, five persons managed to escape from the spot. The police recovered two cows, one Mahindra Scorpio vehicle (No.UK07B3891) and other articles from the spot. Applicant was arrested at 11:20 hrs.
3. Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.
4. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police. The alleged recovery was planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. The said Mahindra Scorpio vehicle did not belong to the applicant. Applicant has not been convicted by any Court. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding.
5. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application.
6. 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 the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
7. 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.
8. The Bail Application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Imran be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
|
| |
