2025:UHC:8336 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 18th SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1742 of 2025 Ishtkar ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The applicant – Ishtkar is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 in Case Crime No.434 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 3. According to the First Information Report, the police received a secret information on 05.09.2025 that Gulsher is slaughtering cows in front of his house. The police party raided the spot. They noticed that several persons were present in an open plot. Applicant was arrested on the spot. The police recovered 950 kg. beef and other articles from the spot. 4. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, for the applicant 1 2025:UHC:8336 submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police. The alleged beef was not recovered from his possession. The said recovery was planted. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is in custody since 05.09.2025. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 5. Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally. 6. 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. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Ishtkar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable 2 2025:UHC:8336 sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 18.09.2025 Pant/ 3