Haseeb Ahmed vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2103 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Haseeb Ahmed vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              IA No. 2 of 2024 for Bail Application
                               In
               Criminal Revision No. 908 of 2024

 Haseeb Ahmed                                            ........Revisionist
                                    Versus

 State of Uttarakhand                                   ........Respondent
 Present:-
        Mr. Tarun Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.
        Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State.

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this revision is made to the

conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Sections

5(11)(1) of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act,

2007 ("the Act"), recorded on 21.03.2018 in Criminal Case

No. 11224 of 2013, State v. Haseeb Ahmed and another, by

the court of Judicial Magistrate/2nd Additional Civil Judge

(Sr. Division), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, by

which the revisionist has been sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three years with fine. It has

been confirmed in appeal.

2. Revision has already been admitted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail

application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that during trial as well as during appeal, the revisionist was

on bail; the impugned judgments and orders are bad in the

eyes of law because there is only one incriminating material

against the revisionist i.e. the forensic science laboratory

report with regard to the alleged recovered article. But, it is

argued that the forensic science laboratory report has not

been put to the revisionist under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 so as to seek his explanation.

5. State was required to file objections, but, the

State has failed to do so.

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

the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail

application deserves to be allowed.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. The execution of sentence, challenged against,

shall remain suspended during and until the conclusion of

the revision.

9. Let the revisionist be released on bail during the

pendency of this revision on his executing a personal bond

and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like

amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. List the criminal revision for final hearing on

15.05.2025.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 18.02.2025 Avneet/