Saif Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18805

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1560 of 2025

Applicant :- Saif Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha,Arun Sinha,Mohammad Zeeshan Lari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Komal Prasad Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

1. Heard Mr. Arun Sinha, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Stateopposite party, Mr. Komal Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

2. The first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0200 of 2024 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 327, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Kaiserbagh, District Lucknow.

¶8

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per contents of First Information Report, the applicant is husband of the informant and incident is said to have taken place on 30.05.2024 at about 10 p.m. when the applicant along with his family members allegedly attacked the informant with the applicant making an endeavour to strangulate the informant. The F.I.R. also indicates that the applicant is habitual for harassing the informant.

¶9

4. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. learned counsel for the applicant has specifically adverted to the fact that although allegations levelled pertains to 30.05.2024, the F.I.R. is highly belated having been filed on 14.12.2024 without any cogent explanation for the same. It has also submitted that the informant has refused for any medical examination. He next submits that the applicant is under incarceration since 19.01.2025 without any previous criminal history and even

¶10

otherwise the provisions of Sections 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 as a maximum punishment of three years.

¶11

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application with the submissions that the contents of F.I.R. as well as statement recorded under 164 Cr.P.C. clearly indicate the imputation of sections made out against the applicant. It is, however, not denied that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"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."

¶14

"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."

¶15

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the F.I.R. is highly belated by 6 months without any cogent explanation for the same; the informant also appears to have refused any medical examination which would have corroborated allegations levelled against the applicant, who is under incarceration since 19.01.2025 without any previous criminal history, therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

9. Let applicant- Saif Rashid , 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 of BNS.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Shubhankar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saif Rashid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saif Rashid 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

Imran @ Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chandra Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Kumar Alias Badaku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Preeti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko