Allowed

Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023/4104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second bail application by an accused in a criminal offense involving sexual exploitation and fraud. The High Court allowed bail, noting that the trial was being delayed by the victim who did not appear despite a bailable warrant, thus violating the accused's right to speedy trial under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions for presence and no adjournment seeking.

Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail)… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47596

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4104 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rishad Murtaza,Aishwarya Mishra,Salil Mohan,Syed Ali Jafar Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Farooq Ayoob

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0143 of 2021, under Sections 323, 376, 504, 506, 406 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Masauli, District-Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2021 passed in Bail No.9238 of 2021.

¶9

The allegations against the applicant in the F.I.R. were that the applicant lured the victim on account of false pretext of marriage and physically exploited her. It was also alleged that the applicant had made promise to the victim that he will get a her job for which she had paid him Rs.3,00,000/-. The first bail application of the applicant after considering the said facts was rejected by this Court.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that this is the second bail application of the applicant and he is in custody since 29.06.2021 and the victim is not even coming to the trial court for giving statement for which the competent court has issued bailable warrant against her as is clear from the order sheet of the trial court. He thus, argues that the trial is being delayed by the victim and the applicant is suffering and is in custody, which violates the right of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned Counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant by

¶12

arguing that beside the present F.I.R. the victim has lodged another F.I.R. for harassment registered as F.I.R No.449 of 22 under Section 354(kha), 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. They further argued that in respect to the second case being F.I.R. No.449 of 2022, the accused(s) therein has been enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, after the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant by this Court, the trial court has proceeded in a expeditious manner, the order sheet of the trial court concerned would disclose that a bailable warrant in the name of victim has been issued to appear and give evidence which prima facie shows that the delay is happening on account of conduct of the victim. It is well settled that right of speedy justice is an extension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the applicant is in custody since 29.06.2021 and has no criminal antecedent prior to this case, as such, on the ground of delayed trial, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶14

In view thereof, the present bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Aftab Ahmad Warsi , 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.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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., may be issued and if 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.

¶19

(iv) 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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Piyush/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftab Ahmad Warsi S/O Shakil Ahmad Warsi (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikrama Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Secrt. Lko.

Govind Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy. Home, Lko and Others

Ashfak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sageer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Pasi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept of Home and 3 Others

Sandip Vs State of U.P.