##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11635

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

30^TH DECEMBER, 2025

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.2411 of 2025

Yunus ..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal,

Brief Holder.

Hon’ble Alok Kum ar Verm a,J.

Applicant is in judicial custody for the offence

punishable under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section

11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act,

2007 in Case Crime No.1163 of 2025, registered at

Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. According to the First Information Report, on

18.11.2025, the police received a secret information

that some persons are slaughtering a cow near

sugarcane field. The police raided the spot. The police

noticed that seven persons were present on the spot.

They recovered 180.59 Kg. beef and other articles from

the spot. The applicant was arrested while other six

persons managed to escape from the spot.

1

2025:UHC:11635

3. Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for

the applicant and Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned

Brief Holder for the respondent.

4. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate contended that the

applicant has been implicated by the police. He was not

involved in the said offence. The alleged beef was not

recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery is

false. There was no independent witness at the time of

the alleged recovery. The alleged place does not belong

to the applicant. The applicant has not been convicted

by any Court. He is a permanent resident of District

Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his

absconding.

5. Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, Brief Holder 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 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

2

2025:UHC:11635

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-Yunus 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: 30.12.2025

JKJ/Pant

3