Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/161/2026 of NAEEM KURESHI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 February 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 06.02.2026 BAI No.161 of 2026 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants through V.C. 2. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned
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.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
06.02.2026
BAI No.161 of 2026 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants through V.C.
2. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned AGA for the State.
3. By means of the present bail application, the applicants have sought release on bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 28 of 2026, registered under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, during the pendency of the trial.
4. The allegations in the FIR are that on 05.01.2026 at about 21:40 hours, during routine patrolling duty, the police allegedly received information from the informant that some unknown persons were slaughtering a cow in a field behind Sultanpur Idgah. Upon reaching the spot, the alleged persons fled away and could not be apprehended. From the spot, certain pieces of beef, alleged bovine limbs, knives and other articles were recovered. A recovery memo was prepared on the spot and, consequently, the First Information Report was registered.
5. A perusal of the FIR as well as the bail rejection order dated 29.01.2026 would show that there is nothing on record to connect the applicants with the allegations contained in the FIR.
6. On a query put by the Court, learned counsel for the State could not point out anything either in the FIR or in the bail rejection order which may connect the applicants with the alleged crime as mentioned in the FIR.
7. In such view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit case for grant of bail.
8. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) Vacation Judge 06.02.2026 BS