Allahabad High Court
Hashim Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25268
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12699 of 2024
Applicant :- Hashim Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhup Chandra Singh,Abdul Raheem Khan,Ramakar Shukla,Ravi Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard 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.390 of 2024, under Section 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, registered at Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur.
3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 25.10.2024 when a police team acting upon a tip off provided by police informer is said to have raided a particular place and apprehended the applicant from the spot with slaughtered cows.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of any recovery being made from the applicant who in fact has been arrested subsequently from his house. It is submitted that previous criminal of applicant has already been explained in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that since charge-sheet has already been filed, there is no occasion for applicant to tamper with any evidence.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant has been caught red handed from the spot in question with recovery of beef as well. It is also submitted that applicant has one previous criminal history.
6. 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."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from applicant who is under incarceration since 26.10.2024. Previous criminal history of applicant of one case has been explained in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit.
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, Hashim Ali, 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 :- 1.5.2025
Mohd. Sharif
