Uttarakhand High Court
Muneer Alam Alias Jani vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 July, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
UKHC010132112026
WPCRL/1474/2026
Muneer Alam Alias Jani ...........Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Lalit Miglani proxy counsel for Mr.
Aakib Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. By means of the present criminal writ
petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the impugned First Information
Report being F.I.R. No. 0067 of 2026,
registered under Sections 3, 5 and 11 of the
Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act,
2007, at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District
Haridwar, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has
been registered alleging that, while the
police party was on routine patrolling duty,
it received secret information that the
petitioner, along with certain other persons,
had allegedly slaughtered cow progeny.
Acting upon the said information, the police
conducted a raid at the alleged place of
occurrence and claimed to have recovered
approximately 150 kilograms of suspected
cow meat. It is further alleged that, upon
noticing the arrival of the police, three
persons fled from the spot under the cover of
darkness and could not be apprehended.
Thereafter, the recovered material was
inspected by the Veterinary Officer, samples
were collected for forensic examination, and
on the basis of the said recovery, the present
F.I.R. came to be registered under Sections
3, 5 and 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of
Cow Progeny Act, 2007.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that the petitioner is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case; that, the petitioner was not
present at the alleged place of occurrence at
the relevant point of time and was, in fact,
present in Village Khanpur, which is
approximately five kilometres away from the
alleged spot, where he was engaged in his
occupation of milking cattle at the houses of
various villagers; that, the petitioner was
neither apprehended from the spot nor
identified by any independent witness or
eyewitness during the investigation; that, no
Test Identification Parade (TIP) has ever been
conducted to establish the identity of the
petitioner.
6. He would further submit that the only
basis for implicating the petitioner is that,
during the raid, someone allegedly shouted,
“Run Johny, run,” and solely on the strength
of such alleged utterance, the petitioner has
been arrayed as an accused; that, although
the prosecution claims to have recovered
suspected cow meat, the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) report confirming the
nature of the seized material is still awaited
and, therefore, there is no scientific evidence
available as on date to establish that the
recovered substance was, in fact, beef or cow
progeny; that, the petitioner has been
implicated along with his two sons without
there being any independent, cogent or
legally admissible material connecting them
with the alleged offence.
7. Learned counsel would further submit
that the implication of the petitioner is
founded merely on suspicion, conjectures
and surmises and not on any credible or
legally admissible material establishing his
involvement in the alleged offences. It is
contended that the investigation has failed
to collect any direct or circumstantial
evidence linking the petitioner with the
alleged recovery or the alleged act of
slaughter. In the absence of any
identification, scientific evidence, recovery
from the conscious possession of the
petitioner, or any other incriminating
material, the continuation of criminal
proceedings amounts to an abuse of the
process of law.
8. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel places
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State
of U.P. and Others, reported in (1194) 4 SCC
260, wherein it has been held that the power
of the police to arrest a person does not
imply that such power should be exercised
in a routine or mechanical manner. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that
an arrest must be justified on the basis of
reasonable satisfaction regarding the
necessity thereof and cannot be made
merely because it is lawful to do so. The
Court further held that arbitrary and
unnecessary arrests infringe the
fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and cause irreparable harm to the
liberty, dignity and reputation of an
individual. It is, therefore, submitted that
the petitioner cannot be subjected to
criminal prosecution solely on the basis of
vague suspicion and unsubstantiated
allegations in the absence of legally
admissible material connecting him with the
alleged offence.
9. This Court finds some substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and having considered the
submissions, this Court is of the view that
this matter definitely requires deliberation.
10. Learned State counsel prays for and is
granted four weeks’ time to file counter
affidavit.
11. List this case after four weeks.
12. Till the next date of listing, as an
interim measure, petitioner shall not be
arrested in connection with the First
Information Report/Case Crime No. 0067 of
2026, registered at Police Station
Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, provided,
the petitioner co-operates with the
investigation.
13. Stay application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
29-07-2026
mamta
