HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Second Anticipatory Bail Application No. 44 of 2023

Mohd. Haseen

...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime

No.751 of 2019, under section 3/6/11 of the Uttarakhand Cow

Progeny Act, 2007, and Section 11 of the Animal Cruelty

(Prevention) Act, 1960, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar,

which is the basis of Criminal Case No. 1515 of 2020, State Vs.

Rahis @ Kallu and Others, passed by the court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar (“the case”).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that the applicant had earlier filed an anticipatory bail

application, which was withdrawn on 22.12.2022. Thereafter,

the applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), which was dismissed on

24.05.2023. He would submit that it is a case of further

2

investigation. No useful purpose would be served if the

applicant is sent to the judicial custody.

4.

In the case, chargesheet was submitted before the

court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District

Haridwar on 10.12.2022, and summons were issued against the

applicant and others. It means, that the first anticipatory bail

application, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.12.2022,

was dismissed after filing of the chargesheet. Thereafter, it is the

case of the applicant that he had challenged the cognizance

order in C482 No.860 of 2022, which was dismissed. The order

passed in the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code is

enclosed as Annexure No.2. It makes mention of summoning

order. The Court records in that petition that, “This Court feels

it apt and also as agreed by the learned counsel for the

applicant that the C482 application would stand disposed of

with the liberty open for the applicant to surrender before

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District

Haridwar, and seek his bail, in accordance with law.” It has

not been done by the applicant, and now he again seeks

anticipatory bail.

5.

The ordersheet of the case has been enclosed,

which reveals that, in fact, non-bailable warrants have already

been issued against the applicant.

3

6.

In the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code, the

applicant himself has stated that he would surrender before the

court concerned and the petition under Section 482 of the Code

was dismissed accordingly, giving such liberty to the applicant.

The applicant very well knew that processes have already been

issued against him. Now, non-bailable warrants have been

issued against him. In such a situation, it is not a case fit for

anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail

application deserves to be rejected.

7.

The second anticipatory bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

26.09.2023

Ravi Bisht