Allahabad High Court
Junaid Ansari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23749
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11892 of 2024
Applicant :- Junaid Ansari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Misra,Avnish Kumar Tiwari,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Shashindra Kumar Srivastava,Sheo Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Santi
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant.
This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 683 of 2024 under Sections 85, 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 109(1) BNS & under Section 3/4 Dowry Protection Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Kheri.
As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 17th August, 2024 at about 2.30 P.M. when the applicant being the husband of informant stands accused of throwing her from first floor of their residence inflicting serious injuries upon her. The parents of applicant have also been nominated as co-accused. The allegation levelled also indicates that the said act was carried out due to unfulfilled dowry demand.
It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the statement of informant recorded as P.W.1 during course of trial in which he has admitted various valuables being given to her by the applicant including registration of plot in her name. It is submitted that aspect of applicant's complicity in allegations levelled against him would be subject matter of evidence and as of now, the applicant is under incarceration since 10th September, 2024 with evidence of informant as P.W.1 having been completed. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with submission that allegations levelled in the F.I.R. have been clearly corroborated by the informant in her statements not only under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. but also during course of trial as P.W.1. Learned counsel for informant has also drawn attention to the injury report to submit that the same also indicates severe injuries suffered by the informant which also corroborate allegations levelled in the F.I.R. He has further submitted that statement of eye witnesses also corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant. Learned A.G.A. however on the basis of instructions admits that there is no criminal history of applicant.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that allegations levelled against the applicant would require corroboration at the stage of evidence during course of trial and at this stage medical report may corroborate the allegations levelled against the applicant. It is also an aspect to be considered that the statement of informant as P.W.1 including her cross examination has been completed. The applicant is under incarceration since 10th September, 2024 and there does not appear to be any apprehension that he would be able to interfere or tamper with the evidence.
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."
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.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Junaid Ansari, 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 269 BNS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.
(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 351 BNSS. 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.
Trial court is directed to expedite the trial pertains to present case crime and conclude the same expeditiously without granting undue adjournment to either parties.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025
prabhat
