Allahabad High Court
Istikharul Haq @ Adnan Mistri vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35286 of 2022
Applicant :- Istikharul Haq @ Adnan Mistri
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. As per office report dated 29.09.2022, the informant has been served notice personally but no one has put in appearance on her behalf.
1A. Heard Mr. Suryakant Verma, learned counsel holding brief for Mr. Dharmendra Prasad, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.325 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376D,343, 323,34 IPC read with Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST, Act, registered at Police Station Shankar Garh, District Prayagraj.
3. As per contents of FIR, the minor daughter of informant was said to have gone missing on 06.10.2021. Suspicion has been cast upon applicant alongwith Kaif.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix has levelled allegation against Kaif and the applicant's name has been introduced only as per suggestion by the investigating officer. It is submitted that even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the entire gist of allegation is only against the co-accused and not on the applicant. It is further submitted that the medical examination does not support the allegation. He is in jail since 12.05.2022 and only charge-sheet as yet has been filed.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not have any contradiction direct allegations levelled in the FIR.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the FIR against the applicant has been levelled only on the basis of suspicion and even as per the statement of prosecutrix recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, main gist of allegation is on one Kaif. The applicant is in jail since 12.05.2022 and as yet only charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter without trial having yet commenced.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Istikharul Haq @ Adnan Mistri, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022
Subodh/-
