No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1673 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Ajeem, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 230 of 2025, under Section 109 of BNS, Sections 3/11(1) of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 11(F) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, registered at P.S.- Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged on by Station House Officer, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar on 21.07.2025 wherein, three persons including the applicant were named for the offence punishable under Section 109 of BNS, Sections 3/11(1) of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Section 11(F) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. It is alleged in the FIR that upon information being received, when the Police party reached at the spot, two accused persons surrendered before the Police and one accused person managed to escape from the place of incident. Thereafter the Police arrested two accused persons and cutting instrument articles, one cow and country made pistol alongwith cartridges were recovered from the accused persons. Thereafter, the co-accused persons disclosed the name of the present applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, that there is no independency witness of the recovery and that the applicant was not arrested from the spot and he is languishing in jail since 22.07.2025. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature; that there are credible and crucial evidence available against the applicant to get him involved in the present case and that applicant has previous criminal history, therefore, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considering the fact that perusal of the contents of the FIR and Sections of the FIR reflects the offence to be of very serious and heinous nature and the applicant has previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The present bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra J.) 10.04.2026 Ujjwal