Allahabad High Court
Amir vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15593
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1095 of 2025
Applicant :- Amir
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1.Heard Mr. Rajiv Raman Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Amir) is languishing in jail since 25.11.2024 in Case Crime No.237 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Behtagokul, District-Hardoi.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.
4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) which has been lodged against unknown persons inasmuch as no one was arrested on the spot. As per allegations, present applicant with the help of his brother-in-law has slaughtered cows. As per further allegation, the meat of the aforesaid cows was sold out to one Lalla @ Afzaal.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Fahmuddin and Lalla @ Afzaal have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11771 of 2024; Fahmuddin vs. State of U.P. and vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.199 of 2025; Lalla @ Afzaal vs. State of U.P., therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be released on bail. The present applicant is having criminal history of four cases, which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit, wherein the present applicant has been granted bail by this Court as well as by the learned court below and the bail orders thereof have been annexed as Annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. The investigation is going on so far as the present applicant is concerned, however, the charge-sheet has been filed against the other co-accused persons. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that as a matter of fact the present applicant and one Amir, brother-in-law of the present applicant, are the main accused who were involved in the act of slaughtering of cows, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail and his bail application may be rejected, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant.
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. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons inasmuch as no one was arrested on the spot; the fact that the co-accused, Fahmuddin and Lalla @ Afzaal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.11.2024 & 13.01.2025 (supra); the criminal history of four cases, which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit, the present applicant has been granted bail by this Court as well as by the learned court below (Annexure No.SA-2); the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the investigation/ trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the applicant may be enlarged on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant (Amir) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-
(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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.
(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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025
Renu/-
