Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/150/2026 of SHAMSHER ALI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 3 February 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No.150 of 2026 Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for
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
BA1 No.150 of 2026
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State.
3. The applicant is accused in FIR No.28 of 2026, under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, during the pendency of the trial.
4. As per the FIR, on 05.01.2026, the police personnel who are patrolling for restraining illegal activities, when a secret informer apprised the police personnel about the cow slaughter, the police personnel raided that place.
5. The case of the applicant is that the applicant was not arrested from the place of occurrence and there is no explanation as to how the police had identified the applicant.
6. It is further the case of the applicant that the applicant was neither arrested on 14.08.2025 nor he was named in the FIR as mentioned in the bail rejection order dated 21.01.2026.
7. The applicant has further denied his role in the said case and there is also a categorical averment in para 12 of the affidavit that neither there is any evidence on record to connect the applicant with the alleged occurrence nor any independent witness has been mentioned in the FIR.
8. On query by the Court, the counsel for the State could not justify the mention of the accused being arrested along with 5 kg of “Go mans” and the applicant is named accused in the FIR.
9. In that view of the matter, the accused/applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
[
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
Vacation Judge
03.02.2026
Ravi