Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1252/2026 of NAFEES Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1252/2026 Nafees --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/1252/2026
Nafees
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant Nafees, S/o Irfan is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 26.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0060 of 2026, P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar wherein he has been implicated for the offences punishable under 3/5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and there is no recovery from the present applicant and from the place where recovery is made does not belong to the applicant which is open place and the FIR is lodged with the delay of 05 hours and there is no FSL report and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2026 and have criminal antecedent of one case of similar nature of offence in which he is already enlarged on bail. Apart from this, he submits that wife of the applicant is pregnant and is at the advance stage.
5. On the other side, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State have not disputed that there is no recovery from the present applicant, however, she submits that the applicant has a criminal antecedent of one case of similar nature.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there is no recovery from the present applicant and in reference to earlier criminal antecedent the applicant is already enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Nafees be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
9. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall not indulge in any such activity in future and shall cooperate with the investigating agency.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
17.08.2026 Parul