SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010110172026 2026:UHC:5156 BA 1st No.1106 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The instant bail application has been moved by the applicant – Nawajish S/o Sahnawaz, praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 18.02.2026 bearing Case Crime No.0050 of 2026, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated along with other persons, namely, Sahnawaz, Amjad, Maluk, Shakeel, Rasheed, Muzameel, Noman @ Kala, Abdula, Tamrez, Farman @ Munna, Aarif, Aadil @ Kalu and Lalu, for the offences punishable under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that neither the applicant slaughtered any cow progeny nor he was involved in any manner and there is no evidence on record to link the present applicant with the alleged offence. Furthermore, there is no public witness of the alleged recovery as shown, which appears to be planted one, and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2026, and is not previously convict. In reference to the disclosure of his past, he submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 5. On the other side, Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the present applicant has suppressed about the criminal antecedents, which itself is reflected from the chart as mentioned in the bail application, though, as a matter of fact as many as there are four cases against the applicant, out of which three cases relates to the similar nature of allegations. He further submits that since the applicant has deliberately suppressed about the criminal antecedents, therefore, he does not deserves for bail. 6. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the record, particularly, the chart as mentioned in the bail application, admittedly the applicant have suppressed about his criminal antecedents, though as per the submissions as advanced by the learned AGA the applicant have criminal antecedents of four cases, and due to the suppression of this fact, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application moved by the present applicant – Nawajish S/o Sahnawaz, is hereby rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.06.2026 Nitesh/