Ahatesham vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4164 UK

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No.771 of 2022
                           With
              Bail Application No. 1 of 2022

Ahatesham                                              ...Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                  ...Respondent

Present:-
            Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in the instant revision is made to

the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 31.10.2019,

passed in Case No. 521 of 2017, State Vs.

Mohd. Ahsan and others, by the court of

2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,

District Haridwar ("the case"). By it the

revisionist has been acquitted of the charge

under Sections 3 of the Uttarakhand

Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 ("the

Act") but has been convicted under

Sections 5/11 of the Act and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three years with a fine of

Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of

fine, imprisonment for a further period of

three months; and

(ii) Judgement and order dated 08.12.2022,

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2019,

Mohd. Ahsan and others Vs. State of

Uttarakhand, by the court of 2nd Additional

Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District

Haridwar. By it, the judgment and order,

passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the case on 19.06.2011, when the

police raided a premises, they found slaughtering of cow

progeny. Three persons were apprehended. It is a case that

the revisionist managed to escape from the place of

occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that it is no evidence case. The finding is not based on any

evidence. The revisionist has not been identified by any of

the witnesses. He would submit that out of five police

personnel, who allegedly raided the premises, only two

have been examined at trial. He would tender the

statements of these witnesses at the time of hearing for

perusal of the Court and has also referred, part of the

statements in support of his argument.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

this matter definitely requires deliberations.

6. Call for the LCR.

7. List this matter on 24.04.2023.

8. Heard on Bail Application No. 1 of 2022.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

it is a case fit for bail and the revisionist deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. The sentence appealed against by the revisionist

shall remain suspended qua the revisionist till disposal of

the revision. Let the revisionist be released on bail, on his

executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 23.12.2022 Jitendra