The court, without adjudicating the merits, may grant interim protection against arrest when the accused expresses a willingness to surrender before the appropriate trial court, thereby balancing investigative requirements with the constitutional right of the accused to seek judicial relief.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. By means of the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report being F.I.R. No. 221 of 2026, dated 30.05.2026, lodged by respondent no. 3, registered under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the allegation that during patrolling duty, the police received information that the petitioners, along with certain other persons, had allegedly slaughtered cow progeny and were storing and distributing beef at the spot. It is further alleged that, acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid and recovered certain packets allegedly containing beef, one electronic weighing machine and approximately 250 kilograms of suspected beef. The recovered material was thereafter inspected and sampled by the Veterinary Officer and, on the basis thereof, the present F.I.R. came to be registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; that the petitioners were not present at the place of the alleged recovery; that their implication is based solely upon the statements of certain witnesses recorded during investigation; and that no incriminating article has been recovered from their possession; that, that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioners; that, accordingly, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that a substantial quantity of suspected beef was recovered during the raid conducted by the police and that the investigation is still in progress. It is submitted that the allegations disclosed in the F.I.R. require thorough investigation and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without pressing the present writ petition on merits, the petitioners are ready and willing to surrender before the court of competent jurisdiction and seek regular bail in accordance with law. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned within a stipulated period and seek appropriate relief. It is further prayed that till such time, the petitioners may be protected from coercive measures.

8. Learned State Counsel does not seriously oppose the aforesaid prayer.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., the stage of investigation and the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that they are willing to surrender before the court concerned and seek regular bail, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the controversy at this stage. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned on or before 10.07.2026 and seek regular bail or any other appropriate relief in accordance with law.

11. Till 10.07.2026 or till the date of surrender, whichever is earlier, no petition