2026:UHC:129 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 0 5 t h JANUARY, 2 0 2 6 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2 0 8 2 of 2 0 2 5 Afzal ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing). Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate. Hon ’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J. Applicant Afzal 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.749 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. 2 . As per the First Information Report, the police saw a motorcycle coming on 24.09.2024. The said motorcycle had no number plate on the front and a sack was kept on the motorcycle. Salman (co-accused) was driving the motorcycle. The police recovered 20 kg. beef from the said sack. Salman was arrested. He told the police that Afzal alias Jala (applicant), Sanawar, Aslam alias Tanda and Sadab had slaughtered a cow and he is going to sell the beef. 3 . Heard Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for 1 2026:UHC:129 the applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 4 . Mr. Rajveer Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the co- accused Salman. Applicant was not involved in the said offence. He is not a convicted person. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence, and, applicant is in custody since 04.01.2025. 5 . Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate, 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 trial 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 2026:UHC:129 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-Afzal 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: 05.01.2026 Shiv/ 3