IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1321 OF 2025 8TH DECEMBER, 2025 Noor Jahan …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, learned counsel (through V.C.) with Mr. Aayush Gaur, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for CBI WITH WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1362 OF 2025 Alshifa Traders …… Petitioner Versus Senior Superintendent of Police Nainital and others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State The Court made the following: 1 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) 1) Learned Deputy Advocate General appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, and the learned counsel Mr. Piyush Garg appears on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2) Notices to respondent Nos. 8 to 12 are not issued in view of the statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General that the private respondents have been arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 382 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 and 190 of B.N.S., 2023. 3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 4) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner ‘s husband, a driver by profession, was transporting certified buffalo meat, i.e, certified by the veterinary doctors of Bareilly on behalf of Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., carrying on business at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. That the husband of the petitioner was employed with one Maryam Trading Company which was trading in buffalo meat in Ramnagar and also supplying the buffalo meat to 2 licensed vendors of Ramnagar. That the meat was being sourced from the neighbouring State as the slaughter house in Ramnagar, District Nainital had been closed down by the Municipal Board. That the slaughter of buffalos and trade in buffalo meat is not prohibited under the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, and that the husband of the petitioner, on the eventful date, was driving the vehicle loaded with buffalo meat, and that one of the local vendors by name Shareeq had informed the 8th respondent about the arrival of meat. That the 8th respondent along with his henchmen halted the vehicle and started a live face-book telecast, and falsely claimed that the petitioner’s husband was transporting cow meat. Enraged by the same, it is stated that the 8th respondent and others pulled out the petitioner’s husband from the vehicle and started severely assaulting him resulting in bleeding injuries. That the patrol police, on being informed through Number 112, rushed to the spot and saved the husband of the petitioner. 5) It is the contention of the petitioner that the 8th respondent is linked with powerful people & powerful politicians and is likely to harm the petitioner and her family members for having had the guts to lodge a police complaint against the 8th respondent, who she alleges is a 3 politician by himself, and even contested for the post of President of the Ramnagar Nagar Palika. 6) The incident and the manner in which it has been carried out and the reason for which it is alleged to have been carried out are shocking, more so, when the State has certified the meat to be buffalo meat. It is alleged that commercial interest was behind the entire conspiracy. 7) The State of Uttarakhand has formulated the Witness Protection Scheme and the scheme provides for appropriate security measures to be put in place to protect the witnesses. 8) In the instant case the petitioner is not merely a complainant but also a witness, and the victim himself is a witness too, i.e., the husband of the petitioner. In that view and keeping in mind the elaborate conspiracy, and the great hype generated by third parties, and allegations of undue influence on the general public in order to shape a public opinion and advance their commercial interest, we deem it appropriate to allow both the petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in part. 8) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital shall have the report of threat perception faced by the 4 petitioner drawn up, and if the report suggests of possible threat to life and limb of the petitioner and her family members, including the victim, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital shall ensure appropriate security to the life and limb of the petitioner and her family members. 9) Both the writ petitions stand ordered accordingly. 10) The compliance report be furnished in two weeks. 11) The learned Deputy Advocate General to secure instructions as to whether any victim compensation scheme has been framed by the State of Uttarakhand and is in prevalence. _____________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 8TH DECEMBER, 2025 Negi 5