BA1/3364/2021 of MAHBOOB Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 31 December 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

31[st] DECEMBER, 2021

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 3364 of 2021

Between:

Mahboob

…Applicant

and

State of Uttarakhand.

…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Safdar. Mohd. Safdar.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

This Bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.400 of 2021, registered with Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 and Section 3/11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, the learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that he does not want to file counter affidavit or objection. He submitted that counter affidavit is not required in this matter. He further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. However, two criminal cases are pending against the applicant.

3. According to the FIR, on 09.11.2021, at around 15:35 hours, 680 kg. beef, 15 cows along with the cutting articles were recovered. The FIR was registered against the present applicant along with the co-accused persons.

4. Ms. Reema Rana, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant was not present at the spot; the said recovery is false; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar; the applicant has no criminal history; the offences are triable by Magistrate and the applicant is in custody since 10.11.2021.

5. 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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant Mahboob 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.

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Government Advocate.

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dated: 31[st] December, 2021 Pant/