Zakir Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19462

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12971 of 2024

Applicant :- Zakir Hussain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh,Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 325 of 2024 under Section 137(2)/87 BNS, Police Station Sampurna Nagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the applicant allegedly enticed away the minor daughter of informant.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS to submit that the applicant and the alleged victim were in fact in a consensual relationship and had gone out for the purposes of marrying each other. It is therefore submitted that there is serious contradiction in the statement of alleged victim to that of the F.I.R. The applicant is under incarceration since 12th November, 2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. and the statement of victim clearly indicate her to be a minor and therefore sections impugned against the applicant are clearly made out. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS are in contradiction with the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. where she has admitted being in a relationship with the applicant who is under incarceration since 12th November,

¶13

2024 without any previous criminal history.

¶14

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 :-

¶15

"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."

¶16

"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."

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant Zakir Hussain 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:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 269 BNS.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶23

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶24

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 prabhat

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Zakir Hussain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakir Hussain v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Zakir Hussain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko