2025:UHC:11034 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 1 1 t h DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2 4 0 0 of 2 0 2 5 Mohd. Sahjad alias Kallu …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder. Hon ’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J. The applicant–Mohd. Sahjad alias Kallu 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. 766 of 2025, registered at Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. 2 . According to the First Information Report dated 23.11.2025, a secret information was received by the police that a cow is being slaughtered in Zakir’s farm. The police raided the spot on the said information. They noticed that six persons were present on the spot. The present applicant (Mohd. Sahjad alias Kallu) and a co- accused Irfan were arrested. The police recovered 140 kg. beef, three motorcycles and other articles from the spot. 3 . Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the 1 2025:UHC:11034 applicant and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 4 . Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, contended that the police has falsely implicated the applicant in the present matter. The alleged beef was not recovered from his possession. The alleged recovery was planted. The place of alleged recovery and the alleged recovered motorcycles do not belong to him. He is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 5 . Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, 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 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 2 2025:UHC:11034 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-Mohd. Sahjad alias Kallu 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: 11.12.2025 Shiv/ 3