'Refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty': Uttarakhand HC grants relief to accused in cow slaughter case

The Uttarakhand High Court on Monday granted bail to a man, who was arrested in connection with an alleged case of cow slaughter and illegal transportation of beef in Haridwar district, observing that there was no justification to keep him behind bars for an indefinite period during the pendency of trial.

The bail order was passed on January 5 by the bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma, while hearing the accused, namely Afzal’s first bail application arising out of a case of 2024 registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur.

Afzal is accused of offences under Sections 3 and 5 read with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. He had been in judicial custody since January 4, 2025.

According to the prosecution case, on September 24, 2024, police personnel noticed a motorcycle approaching them without a number plate affixed on the front. A sack was allegedly placed on the motorcycle, which was being driven by Salman, a co-accused in the case.

Upon stopping the vehicle and checking the sack, the police claimed to have recovered 20 kilograms of beef. Salman was arrested at the spot. During questioning, Salman allegedly disclosed that the beef had come from a cow slaughtered by Afzal alias Jala, along with other persons named Sanawar, Aslam alias Tanda and Sadab. Salman further stated that he was transporting the meat for the purpose of selling it.

Afzal was not apprehended from the spot and was subsequently implicated in the case on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused during police interrogation.

Appearing for Afzal, Advocate Rajveer Singh argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It was submitted that Afzal had no criminal antecedents and was not a convicted person. The defence also pointed out that Afzal was a permanent resident of Haridwar district, thereby negating any possibility of absconding.

It was further contended that the investigation had already been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the counsel argued, there was no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that Afzal had been in custody since early January 2025.

The State opposed the bail plea through the Assistant Government Advocate, who orally resisted the application.

After hearing both sides, the high court reiterated the settled legal position that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Court observed that refusal of bail amounts to a restriction on an individual’s personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that pre-trial detention is not intended to serve as punishment.

Court noted that the primary purpose of keeping an accused in custody during trial is to ensure his presence before the court and not to penalise him before guilt is established.

Taking into account the submissions made by both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, court found no reason to keep Afzal in custody for an indefinite period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, court held that Afzal deserved to be released on bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed. Court directed that Afzal be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Case Title: Afzal vs State of Uttarakhand

Judgment Date: January 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Verma