2025:UHC:6041 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/761/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Bilal Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Galib, S/o Munfait is praying for anticipatory bail in relation to FIR dated 14.05.2022, bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 386 of 2022, registered at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar wherein the present applicant along with three others, namely, Ashu, Javed and Jakir were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 3,5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery of 160 kg of beef and equipments were false and planted one, and, in fact, the applicant was not involved in commission of crime. He further submits that applicant’s name was disclosed by the co-accused Ashu, S/o Sageer which itself reveals that applicant has been falsely implicated without any credible evidence. He further argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, however, delay has not been explained and no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and the offence, as alleged, is triable by the Magistrate, and, furthermore there is no any such ingredient which constitutes offence, as alleged, against the 2025:UHC:6041 applicant. 5. On the other side, Mr. Tumul Nailwal, learned A.G.A. seriously opposed the instant anticipatory bail application and submits that the offence, as alleged, are serious in nature and huge quantity of beef was also recovered, therefore, applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration seriousness of the allegation, as alleged, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, instant anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:6041