Nazim Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29383

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6646 of 2024

Applicant :- Nazim Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Devendra Pratap,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar 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 Crime No. 170 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323, 342, 386, 364-A, 395, 201 IPC, P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 29.11.2023 when the informant alleged that he had been abducted by the police personnel nominated as accused nos. 1 and 2 in the FIR. Applicant also allegedly accompanied in the said police personnel and participated in the abduction.

¶9

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and since sections are clearly not made out against him in view of the fact that he is not a police personnel. It is submitted that the main accused SubInspector Anurag Dwivedi and Head Constable Yusuf Hussain have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Applications No. 4286 of 2024 and 4821 of 2024. It is submitted that other co-accused having similar role with applicant have also been enlarged on bail. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 10.12.2023 with trial at the inception.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the said facts. It is admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

¶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

¶12

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 that main role of abduction has been alleged upon co-accused Anurag Dwivedi and Yusuf Hussain who are police personnel but have been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove. Applicant is said to have accompanied the said persons. He is under incarceration since 10.12.2023 with trial only at the inception.

¶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

Let applicant, Nazim Khan , 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:-

¶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

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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.

¶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 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Satish

¶24

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

Nazim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Madhyamik Shikha and Others

C/M Ishwar Sharan Mahavir Inter College Thru Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Govt. of U.P. and Others

Akhil Foundation, Shadiyabad, Ghazipur Thru. Its Manager Surendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

C/M Awadh Academy Jahagirabad, Barabanki Thru. Manager Avadhesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lko. and 8 Others

Shahid Raza and Another Vs Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Mandal Ayodhya, Ayodhya and 2 Others

Sardar Ajeet Singh @ Ajeet Singh Vs District Judge, Ayodhya and Another