[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Noor Jahan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1321 OF 2025
8TH DECEMBER, 2025
Noor Jahan ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, learned counsel
(through V.C.) with Mr. Aayush
Gaur, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for
the State
: Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for
CBI
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1362 OF 2025
Alshifa Traders ...... Petitioner
Versus
Senior Superintendent of Police
Nainital and others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for
the State
The Court made the following:
1
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar)
1) Learned Deputy Advocate General appears on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, and the learned
counsel Mr. Piyush Garg appears on behalf of respondent
No. 3.
2) Notices to respondent Nos. 8 to 12 are not
issued in view of the statement made by learned Deputy
Advocate General that the private respondents have been
arrested pursuant to the FIR No. 382 of 2025, registered
for the offences punishable under Section 109 and 190 of
B.N.S., 2023.
3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
4) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner 's
husband, a driver by profession, was transporting certified
buffalo meat, i.e, certified by the veterinary doctors of
Bareilly on behalf of Marya Frozen Agro Food Products Pvt.
Ltd., carrying on business at Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. That
the husband of the petitioner was employed with one
Maryam Trading Company which was trading in buffalo
meat in Ramnagar and also supplying the buffalo meat to
licensed vendors of Ramnagar. That the meat was being
sourced from the neighbouring State as the slaughter
house in Ramnagar, District Nainital had been closed
down by the Municipal Board. That the slaughter of
buffalos and trade in buffalo meat is not prohibited under
the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, and
that the husband of the petitioner, on the eventful date,
was driving the vehicle loaded with buffalo meat, and that
one of the local vendors by name Shareeq had informed
the 8th respondent about the arrival of meat. That the 8th
respondent along with his henchmen halted the vehicle
and started a live face-book telecast, and falsely claimed
that the petitioner's husband was transporting cow meat.
Enraged by the same, it is stated that the 8th respondent
and others pulled out the petitioner's husband from the
vehicle and started severely assaulting him resulting in
bleeding injuries. That the patrol police, on being
informed through Number 112, rushed to the spot and
saved the husband of the petitioner.
5) It is the contention of the petitioner that the 8th
respondent is linked with powerful people & powerful
politicians and is likely to harm the petitioner and her
family members for having had the guts to lodge a police
complaint against the 8th respondent, who she alleges is a
politician by himself, and even contested for the post of
President of the Ramnagar Nagar Palika.
6) The incident and the manner in which it has
been carried out and the reason for which it is alleged to
have been carried out are shocking, more so, when the
State has certified the meat to be buffalo meat. It is
alleged that commercial interest was behind the entire
conspiracy.
7) The State of Uttarakhand has formulated the
Witness Protection Scheme and the scheme provides for
appropriate security measures to be put in place to
protect the witnesses.
8) In the instant case the petitioner is not merely a
complainant but also a witness, and the victim himself is a
witness too, i.e., the husband of the petitioner. In that
view and keeping in mind the elaborate conspiracy, and
the great hype generated by third parties, and allegations
of undue influence on the general public in order to shape
a public opinion and advance their commercial interest,
we deem it appropriate to allow both the petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed in part.
8) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital
shall have the report of threat perception faced by the
petitioner drawn up, and if the report suggests of possible
threat to life and limb of the petitioner and her family
members, including the victim, the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Nainital shall ensure appropriate security to the
life and limb of the petitioner and her family members.
9) Both the writ petitions stand ordered
accordingly.
10) The compliance report be furnished in two
weeks.
11) The learned Deputy Advocate General to secure
instructions as to whether any victim compensation
scheme has been framed by the State of Uttarakhand and
is in prevalence.
_____________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 8TH DECEMBER, 2025
Negi
