Salman And Another --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2329 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Salman And Another --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026

                                                                                COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                                                                                       2026:UHC:2072

                               BA1 No. 423 of 2026

                               Salman and Another              --Applicants

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand           --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicantsz.

2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, A.G.A. and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by Applicant No. 1, namely Salman, aged about 24 years, S/o Taufeeq, and Applicant No. 2, namely Shahban, aged about 20 years, S/o Kala @ Kayyum, both residents of Village Madhopur Hajratpur, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The Applicants are in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 94 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007.

4. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicants, and Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A., and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants have neither slaughtered any cow progeny nor were they involved in any act of cow slaughter or sale of prohibited meat. It is submitted that the allegation regarding slaughter of cow progeny is wholly baseless and not supported by cogent evidence. It is further submitted that the place from where the alleged beef was recovered does not belong to the present Applicants. The Applicants have no previous criminal history and are in judicial custody since 08.03.2026.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the Applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 24.03.2026 SB