I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

29^th OCTOBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.1554 of 2025

Mateen ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

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

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,

Assistant Government Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

Applicant-Mateen is in judicial custody for the

offence punishable under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 (1) of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 in Case Crime No.151 of 2025, registered at Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh

Nagar.

2. According to the First Information Report, on a secret information, the police raided the spot on 05.06.2025 and recovered 262 kg. beef and other articles from the spot. The applicant, the co-accused

Sarfaraz and other co-accused were arrested.

3. Heard Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned

Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, submitted that the alleged beef was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. He was not involved in the said offence. He has been implicated in the present matter. The alleged recovery was planted. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Sarfaraz, the co-accused of the similar role, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in First Bail Application No. 1167 of 2025.

5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the bail application orally.

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 person in detention during the trial 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- Mateen 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.

Dt:29.10.2025 Shiv/