Haneef Manihar @ Mohd. Haneef vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24892

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 740 of 2025 Applicant :- Haneef Manihar @ Mohd. Haneef Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Raj Singh Yadav,Narendra Gupta 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. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0302 of 2024, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, registered at Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused are said to have enticed away the minor daughter of informant.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has not supported the prosecution version. It is submitted that victim has also denied medical examination. Learned counsel submits that applicant is under incarceration since 03.01.2025 with previous criminal history has been explained.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has already 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 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 submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although in the FIR allegations of enticing away the minor daughter of informant has been indicated but the same does not appear to be supported by statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Medical also appears to have been denied. Previous criminal history of applicant has admittedly been explained.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Haneef Manihar @ Mohd. Haneef involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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 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/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

Haneef Manihar @ Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef Manihar @ Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

S v M Pharmacy College Thru. Anupam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Anoop Kuamr Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Home Lko.

Sri Bhagwan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp Registration Lko and 4 Others

Anita Gupta vs Atul Kumar Gupta

Shashi Bhushan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko and 4 Others