SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3004 BA1 No. 654 of 2026 Naeem Ali ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Naeem Ali, S/o Mohd. Yamin, R/o Village Chakloharra, P.S. Bhagatpur, Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 0081 of 2023, registered at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5, 6, 11(1) and 11(2) of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. 4. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the person in whose name the licence of the meat shop was issued has not been arrested and, instead, the present Applicant, who is merely a daily wage worker earning livelihood for his family, has been implicated to shift the burden. It is further submitted that the Applicant was neither found slaughtering any cow progeny nor transporting the alleged meat from the State of Uttarakhand to any other State. It is also argued that all the offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2026 and the case of the present Applicant stands on parity. On such grounds, prayer has been made to enlarge the Applicant on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application contending that the Applicant has criminal history and, considering his antecedents as well as the nature of allegations, he is not entitled to bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the role attributed to the Applicant prima facie appears to be limited; admittedly the principal licence holder has not been arrested; the offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate; and the Applicant is in custody since 20.03.2026. This Court also takes note of the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail and the present Applicant claims parity with the said co-accused. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusations, period of incarceration undergone, parity with co-accused and attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 23.04.2026 Shiksha