Salma Bano Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19376

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1594 of 2025

Applicant :- Salma Bano Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Arun Chand Pandey,Ram Bahadur Maurya 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

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.294 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 66-D Information Technology Act, P.S. Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, allegation has been levelled against applicant alongwith co-accused Nazir Ali, husband of applicant, of deceitfully inducing the informant in making investment in the Firm in which applicant alongwith the said Nazir Ali are Directors. It has been stated that despite such investment being made, no return was made to the applicant upon demand and even the documents pertaining to agreement between the applicant and co-accused were fabricated.

¶9

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that a bare perusal of the FIR as well as statement of informant recorded subsequently do not indicate any receipt of money by the applicant or any fabrication being committed by her. It is submitted that entire gist of allegations in fact has been made on applicant's husband Nazir Ali. It is submitted that applicant was in fact a Non-Executive Director of the Firm and without any responsibilities of the Firm. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 17.07.2024 and a previous criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 26.03.2025.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submissions that due to

¶11

imputation of Section 120-B IPC, collusion of applicant with the main accused is made out from perusal of the FIR. The previous criminal history of applicant, however, has been explained.

¶12

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

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears from a perusal of FIR and statement of complainant that the only role assigned to applicant is that of being a Director in the company and the main gist of allegations appear to have been made against her husband Nazir Ali. There does not appear to be any receipt of money by the applicant or allegations of forgery and fabrication against her who is under incarceration since 17.07.2024 with previous criminal history being explained.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Salma Bano 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

¶19

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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Satish

¶25

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

Salma Bano v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salma Bano v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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