2025:UHC:8721 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.255 of 2025 Rifakat ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Akshay Latwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant-Rifakat 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.190 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Jawalapur, District Haridwar. 2. The First Bail Application (No.1511 of 2025) was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.09.2025 granting liberty to the applicant to file afresh. 3. According to the First Information Report dated 28.04.2025, on a secret information, the police 1 2025:UHC:8721 raided the spot and recovered 110 kg. beef. Applicant was arrested. 4. Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 5. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police because he had filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar to lodge an FIR against the police officials. The alleged beef was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. The said recovery is false. There was no independent witness at the time of the alleged recovery. This fact also supports the contentions of the applicant. Applicant is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 6. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, has opposed the second bail application orally. 7. 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 2 2025:UHC:8721 keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 8. 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. 9. The Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Rifakat 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. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt:26.09.2025 Neha 3 NEHA BISHT Digitally signed by NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f00 8e9a4a8038ee7326b08b2d0e01 8b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB 9677068452F32DE6BA960BFE6 4D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F9 2, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.09.26 18:02:06 +05'30'