Junaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23908

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1651 of 2025

Applicant :- Junaid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Singh,Dharmendra Bahadur Singh 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. 23 of 2025 under Section 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11(D) of Animal Cruelty Act & Section 325 BNS, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 19th January, 2025 when a police team on the basis of tip off provided by police informer is said to have apprehended a DCM bearing registration No. UK17CA5549 with live cattle.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons and applicant's name has been introduced only on the basis of being owner of the said vehicle. It is submitted that applicant has neither been apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from him. He is under incarceration since 25th January, 2025 with previous criminal history of ten cases having already been explained.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said facts.

¶11

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 F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons and the applicant has neither been apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from him. Previous criminal history has already been

¶12

explained while the applicant is under incarceration since 25th January, 2025.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

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.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Junaid , 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 BNS.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Satish

¶24

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

Junaid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid 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

Mohd. Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs Abhay Singh

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Zannatunnisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Lko.