2026:UHC:4569 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/207/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. By means of the present anticipatory bail application, the applicants seek grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 10 of 2026, registered under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, at Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the allegation that, acting upon secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly recovered about 3 kilograms of beef from the spot, whereafter the present F.I.R. came to be registered against the applicant on allegations of slaughtering cow progeny. 5. It is submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case; that, no incriminating recovery has been effected from his conscious possession and he had no role whatsoever in the alleged incident; that, there is an unexplained delay of about four hours in lodging the F.I.R. and no specific role has been assigned to the 2026:UHC:4569 present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the recovery of alleged beef was effected during a raid conducted by the police on the basis of secret information. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents involving offences of a similar nature; that, the alleged beef was recovered from the house of the applicant and samples thereof were sent for examination to the Veterinary Department, on the basis whereof the present F.I.R. has been registered; that, despite directions issued by the Court, the applicant has not surrendered before the court concerned and the investigation is still in progress. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the criminal antecedents attributed to the applicants, and the fact that the applicant has not surrendered before the court concerned despite the directions issued by this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 09.06.2026 Mamta