Faraz Ather vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 6056 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Faraz Ather vs State Of U.P. on 12 March, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36606
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7685 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Faraz Ather
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Raj Kishore Dubey,Vineet Vikram
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anuj Srivastava,G.A.,Ramesh Kumar,Vikrant Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 548 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 123, 69, 108, 89, 61(2), 115(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/5(1) Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have fleeced and fooled the victim and lured her to marry him and had taken heavy amount of money from her.

5. The applicant is stated to have subjected the victim to physical and mental harassment and had promised to marry her and had refused to do so subsequently.

6. The victim was seen conducting prayers as per Muslim customs which led the informant to brain attack and was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The applicant promised to keep the daughter of the informant happy, as such, the families had taken a ceremony agreeing to marrying the parties with each other but subsequently, the applicant refused to do so until and unless the victim converted to Islam, as such, the applicant had abetted the deceased person to commit suicide on 11.12.2024.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

8. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

9. There is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant of having attempted or converted the victim to Islam.

10. The said facts have been mentioned by the informant as an embellishment.

11. The informant had given an application on 11.12.2024 before the police station regarding the death of his daughter and had not whispered a single word against the applicant about having abetted the deceased or having forcibly tried to get her converted to Islam.

12. The family members of the informant were very much present at the time of inquest proceedings taken up the same day i.e. on 11.12.2024.

13. The autopsy of the deceased person was conducted the same night and the last rites conducted subsequently.

14. The inordinate delay between the said death and the FIR speaks volume of false implication. The said FIR has been instituted as an after thought.

15. The applicant had never attempted to convert the victim to Islam as an application for conducting the marriage as per Special Marriage Act was given by the applicant and the affidavit was sworn to the effect but the same could not be accepted at the office as the father's name of the deceased did not match in two documents i.e. Aadhar card and her pan card, as such, the matter was deferred due to the said discrepancy.

16. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on certain photographs whereby the said marriage was agreed and the ceremony was held at hotel Raddison NOIDA and the members of both the families were present at that time at that ceremony. The said photographs have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit.

17. Certain WhatsApp chats of the victim and the applicant have been made a part of the case diary by the Investigating Officer whereby, the applicant is stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty but by no means the said WhatsApp chats come within the category of abating the deceased to commit suicide.

18. There is no statement of the victim which indicates that applicant had abetted her to commit suicide, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

19. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court i.e. 2024 INSC 908 Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi vs. State of Karnataka through SHO Kakati Police and has relied on paragraph 30 of the same, as such, the elements of abating the deceased are absent and the applicant is entitled for bail.

20. The relevant paragraph is being reproduced as under :

"If we examine the instant case on the touch stone of the above principles of law, we find that the accused-appellant had simply refused to marry the deceased and thus, even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of broken relationship which by itself would not amount to abetment to suicide. The accused-appellant had not provoked the deceased in any manner to kill herself; rather the deceased herself carried poison in a bottle from her village while going to Kakati, Karnataka with a predetermined mind to positively get an affirmation from the accused-appellant to marry her, failing which she would commit suicide. Therefore, in such a situation simply because the accused-appellant refused to marry her, would not be a case of instigating, inciting or provoking the deceased to commit suicide."

21. The victim was aged about 30 years and the applicant was aged about 37 years old, both were mature persons and belong to cosmopolitan families.

22. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

23. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

24. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that it is a classic case of love jihad as the victim has been forced by the applicant to convert to Islam as she used to practice the same in her house just to get attuned to the same, as was observed by the sister of the deceased and the informant himself.

25. The said elements of forcible conversion falls within the category of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and a bright lady of 30 years has lost her life due to the act of the applicant as he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

26. The applicant had taken Rs.35 lacs from the victim by using his clout and although, there is evidence of Rs.6 lacs being transferred to the account of the applicant from that of the deceased person but the rest amount was given in cash.

27. There are whats app chats indicating that applicant used to harass her and had forced her to commit suicide as no other option was left with her to commit suicide.

CONCLUSION:

28. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

29. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

30. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

31. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

32. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is delayed by about six days, coupled by the fact that victim is 30 years old and applicant is 37 years old person and also the fact that there is no dying declaration of the victim recorded as per provision of Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

34. Let the applicant- Faraz Ather, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. 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.

35. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

36. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 12.3.2025

Priya

(Justice Krishan Pahal)