MOHD SHAHJAD vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — BA1/820/2026

Case under Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (Act No. 06 of 2007) Section 3/5/11. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 19th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010082522026

Filing Number

BA1/3955/2026

Filing Date

15-May-2026

Registration No

BA1/820/2026

Registration Date

15-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPLICATIONS ( 5 )

Sub-Category

BAIL DURING INVESTIGATION ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

19-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (Act No. 06 of 2007) Section 3/5/11

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD SHAHJAD

    Adv. GAURAV SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF

    Case Summary: BA1/820/2026 - Mohd. Shahjad v. State of Uttarakhand The court granted bail to applicant Mohd. Shahjad, arrested under the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. The court found no direct evidence against him—no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, and his name appeared only in a co-accused's custodial disclosure statement. Since similarly-situated co-accused persons had already been released on bail, the court determined bail conditions were met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-May-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

  4. 15-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA1/820/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: BA1/820/2026 - Mohd. Shahjad v. State of Uttarakhand The court granted bail to applicant Mohd. Shahjad, arrested under the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007. The court found no direct evidence against him—no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession, and his name appeared only in a co-accused's custodial disclosure statement. Since similarly-situated co-accused persons had already been released on bail, the court determined bail conditions were met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case