The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Mohd. Rahees in a cow slaughter case, holding that criminal history alone does not justify denial of bail absent material showing tampering or witness intimidation.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and leaving the country.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17809 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Rahees Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report has been lodged with the allegation that the body parts of the cow were recovered and the main allegation was against the co-accused, Anees Ahmad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the only evidence against the applicant is the confessional statement of the co-accused while in police custody. There is no other evidence linking the applicant with the alleged crime. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 9 and 13 of the affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.2.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.
Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."
In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
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 for the State.
Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and 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.
Let the applicant- Mohd. Rahees involved in Case Crime No. 55 of 2023, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Bithari Chainpur, District Bareilly be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
5 . The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023 VMA
Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite criminal antecedents in a case under U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Whether there is material suggesting tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses justifying denial of bail.
Whether the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception applies to the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj SinghExplained¶9
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 · Who else cites this
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶12
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Rahees
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vikram D. Chauhan
Parties & counsel
