SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010118692026 2026:UHC:5627 BA 1st No.1198 of 2026 UKHC010118692026 BA1/1198/2026 Shahnawaj --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent With UKHC010118712026 BA1/1199/2026 Shadab Alias Tilli --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. These two bail applications have been moved by the applicants – Shahnawaj S/o Ikhlaq and Shadab @ Tilli S/o Ikhlaq, praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 28.03.2026 bearing Case Crime No.140 of 2026, Police State Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, wherein, both the applicants has been implicated 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 applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated and have no previous criminal history. In paragraph 13 of the bail application, a specific averment has been made in both the bail applications that the applicants have no previous criminal history. 5. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA, on written instructions, apprised to this Court that both the applicants have a long criminal history and this fact has been suppressed in both the bail applications. She submits that in the chart as mentioned in paragraph 1, there is no reference about criminal antecedents and in paragraph 13, of the bail application, a misleading statement has been given that the applicants have no criminal history. By placing a written instructions before this Court against Shahnawaj, as many as there are eight cases in relation to the similar nature of the allegations and one case is under the Gangster Act and since 2020, he is indulged in all these activities. The written instructions further reveals that so far as the other co-accused – Shadab @ Till, is concerned, this applicant is also indulged in criminal activities since 2020, and against him also there are in total eight cases and that too relates to the similar nature of allegations and one case is under the Gangster Act. She submits that since both the applicants are indulged in all these activities since long back in the same Police Station of Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, and this fact they have not disclosed in the bail applications, therefore, applicants does not deserve for bail. 6. Now taking into consideration the fact about criminal antecedents which are deliberately suppressed in both the bail applications, which is evident from the written instructions of the State, therefore, both the bail applications are dismissed primarily on the ground that the applicants have suppressed about their criminal antecedents and secondly they are indulged in such activities since long back and most of the cases are identical to the present one. 7. Accordingly, both the bail applications lack merit and are hereby rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2026 Nitesh/