Allowed

Mohd Huzefa Alias Ujefa v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC11 Jun 2025ABA/637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by three applicants named in an FIR over cow slaughter under the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act. The court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including cooperation with investigators and regular trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Mohd Huzefa Alias Ujefa Vs State of Uttarakhand — Anticipatory Bail | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4815

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

¶4

11^th JUNE, 2025

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 637 of 2025

¶6

Mohd. Huzefa alias Ujefa and two others ...Applicants

¶7

Versus State of Uttarakhand … Respondent Counsel for the Applicants : Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder.

¶8

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

¶9

The present Application has been filed by the applicants for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2025, registered at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar under Section 3, Section 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarkhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

¶10

2 . As per the First Information Report dated 08.05.2025, the police party received a secret information that Ujefa, Amjad, Sahib (applicants), Arshad and Sajid are slaughtering a cow. The police party raided the spot. They observed that five persons were present on the spot. One co-accused Sajid was arrested. Four persons managed to escape from the spot. The police party recovered 150 kg. beef and other articles from the spot. The co-accused Sajid told that Ujefa, Amjad, Sahib and Arshad were also involved in slaughtering the cow.

¶11

¶12

2025:UHC:4815

¶13

3. Heard Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶14

4. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, for the applicants contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the police and the co-accused Sajid. Applicants were not present on the spot. Noting was recovered from their possession. They have no criminal antecedents. They are permanent residents of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding, and, the co-accused Arshad has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.584 of 2025.

¶15

5. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State, has opposed the anticipatory bail application orally.

¶16

6. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

7 . Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. I t is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants Mohd. Huzefa alias

¶18

¶19

2025:UHC:4815

¶20

Ujefa, Rihan alias Amjad and Sufiyan alias Sahib, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) Applicants shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii) If the charge-sheet is filed, the applicants shall attend the trial court regularly and they shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

¶23

(iii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case.

¶24

(iv) Applicants shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

¶25

8. It is made clear that if the applicants misuse or

¶26

violate any of the conditions, imposed upon them, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶27

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

¶28

Dt: 11.06.2025 Pant/

¶29

Mohd Huzefa Alias Ujefa v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Huzefa Alias Ujefa v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Pathak Vs Mohd Umar Khan

Anurag Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajat Sharma (Minor) and Others Vs the Union of India

Irshad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Karandeep Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipin Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand