Furkan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Furkan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Furkan (Case Crime No. 89 of 2024, S.-364-A IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura) to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five enumerated conditions (non-tampering/non-threatening; undertaking against adjournments when witnesses present; personal presence on trial dates including opening of case, framing of charge and S. 313 Cr.P.C. statement; compliance where a S. 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation issues, else action under S. 174-A IPC; possible S. 229-A IPC action for unexcused absence), with sureties verified before the release order and identity, status and residence proof of applicant and sureties verified before acceptance of bonds; breach of conditions is a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Furkan, alleged to have committed abduction together with co-accused (offence under Section-364-A IPC, Case Crime No. 89 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali, Mathura), should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of counsel for both sides, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Apex Court dicta in Dataram Singh (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Manish Sisodia (2024 LawSuit (SC) 677), and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails over capacity by under-trials, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the applicant made out a case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Release of the applicant is directed upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to stated conditions; before issuing the release order the sureties are to be verified.

Key takeaways

Conditional bail obligations imposed: no tampering with evidence or threatening of witnesses (i); undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present, failing which the Trial Court may treat it as abuse of bail liberty (ii); presence before the Trial Court on each date fixed and in particular at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, deliberate absence being actionable as abuse of liberty (iii)-(v); misuse triggering Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation exposes the applicant to proceedings under Section 174-A IPC (iv); absence without sufficient cause at the Section 313-recording stage may invite action under Section 229-A IPC (iii); breach of any condition constitutes ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Siddharth, J.; neutral cit. 2025:AHC:57683; order dt. 18.04.2025) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application 8789 of 2025 of applicant Furkan, prosecuted for abduction under Section-364-A IPC in Case Crime No. 89 of 2024, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura (opposite party: State of U.P. and Another). Counsel (R.P. Mishra) submitted that the FIR and recovery of the abductee both fell on 16.02.2024, that the applicant was in jail since 27.12.2024 with no criminal history to his credit, and that co-accused Kala @ Khurshid and Junaid @ Vakeel had already obtained bail from a coordinate Bench on 27.06.2024 and 19.06.2025 (Bail Applns. 21115 and 21915 of 2024). Weighing the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity, the Article 21 mandate, the Apex Court dicta of Dataram Singh ((2018) 3 SCC 22) and Manish Sisodia (2024 LawSuit (SC) 677), and 5-6 times jail overcrowding by under-trials, the Court allowed bail without expressing any opinion on merits. Release ordered on a personal bond with two like sureties (verified pre-release), subject to conditions barring tampering with evidence or threats to witnesses and adjournment-seeking when witnesses attend, requiring presence at charge-framing and the S. 313 Cr.P.C. statement, and prescribing S. 229-A IPC / S. 82 Cr.P.C. / S. 174-A IPC consequences for defaults; breach of any condition is a ground for cancellation.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57683

Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8789 of 2025 Applicant :- Furkan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

There are allegations against the applicant of committing the offences of abduction of a person by the applicant and another co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged on 16.02.2024 and recovery of the abductee was made on 16.02.2024 itself. The applicant is in jail since 27.12.2024 and has no criminal history to his credit. Coaccused Kala @ Khurshid and Junaid @ Vakeel have already been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.6.2024 and 19.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.21115 of 2024 and21915 of 2024.

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Furkan involved in Case Crime No. 89 of 2024, under Section-364-A IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mathura 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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 fail 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.

(v) 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 applicants are 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.

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 18.4.2025/Mini

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad