Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21460

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1320 of 2025

Applicant :- Sharukh Mansuri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and perused the record. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 stand dispensed with.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-0597 of 2024, under Section 87 B.N.S & Section 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, registered at Sahabad, District Hardoi.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, which has been filed against one Hasan, it has been alleged by informant that he is Chairperson of the Kesaria Hindu Vahani, U.P. and has been informed that the accused was instrumental in conversion of religion of one girl of a locality.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against the said person. It is submitted that applicant's name does not feature either in the first information report or even in the statements of girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., 2023. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 09.12.2024 and does not have any previous criminal history. It is also submitted that there is serious contradiction in the statement of girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S, 2023. Coaccused Sakoor with whom parity has been sought, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.2367 of 2025. Coaccused Anis has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1335 of 2025.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application with the submission that the name of applicant emerged subsequently during investigation as a witness of nikah which is said to have taken place. However, it is admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

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 :-

¶12

"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."

¶13

"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."

¶14

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie and subject to evidence during trial, it appears that there is serious contradiction in the statement of girl recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S, 2023 particularly since in her statement recorded under Sections 183 B.N.S.S., girl has completely denied the allegations levelled. The first information report also appears to have been lodged only on the basis of some information derived by informant. Co-accused Sakoor and Anis have already been enlarged on bail.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicant Sharukh Mansuri, involved in 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 B.N.S.S.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 B.N.S.S.

¶20

(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 B.N.S.S.. 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

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 prabhat

¶22

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

Sharukh Mansuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharukh Mansuri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Shyamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Adarsh Singh @ Yashu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.