SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 972058

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
SAAJID – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA1 1855 / 2025



I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

08TH OCTOBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.1855 of 2025

Saajid ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The 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.284 of 2025, registered at

Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar.

2. According to the First Information Report dated 18.09.2025, a secret information was received by the police on 17.09.2025 that Saajid (applicant) and others are slaughtering a cow in poplar field. The police raided the spot and recovered 190 Kg. beef and other

articles from the spot. The applicant was arrested.

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

Holder for respondent.

4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing was recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery was planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. 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, and, he is in custody since 17.09.2025.

5. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder has opposed the bail application orally.

6. 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, 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 – Saajid 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.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date:08.10.2025 JKJ/Pant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top