Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 485 (UTT)

Ahatesham v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-12-23

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - 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. 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.