Allahabad High Court

Mustkeem vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025

Author:
Krishan Pahal

Bench:
Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135131

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5719 of 2025

Applicant :- Mustkeem

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Singh (Bohra)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shams Uz Zaman

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for teh informant and Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 157 of 2024, under
Sections 498A
,
304B
I.P.C. and 3/4
D.P. Act
, Police Station- Dankaur, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 19.03.2023, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the victim to cruelty for demand of 10,00,000/- and 200 sq. yard plot as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 09.06.2024 at about 10:30 AM.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, Viscera was preserved and Viscera Report indicated that it contained Aluminium Phosphide in the chemical analysis report. It is further argued that the inquest proceedings of the deceased was complete on 10.06.2024 at about 11:30 AM itself and the informant had instituted the FIR the same evening at about 04:19 PM. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and was arrayed as inquest witness No.1 and he had not whispered a single word against the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant, as a bona fide act, rushed the deceased to the hospital for treatment of the deceased, the said fact stands fortified from the consent from indoor treatment form at Divya Multispeciality Hospital, Dankaur, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Had the applicant committed the said offence he would not have rushed the deceased to the hospital.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and the prosecution is not producing prosecution witness for examination. Only informant has been examined as P.W.1 and after his examination-in-chief, the cross-examination was adjourned on the prayer of the prosecution itself as it was stated that the informant had to attend some funeral, as such, the case was adjourned. The applicant has not got the case adjourned on his behalf even a single time.

9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. This Court had called for a status report from the Court concerned which has been received and the said report indicates that charge against the applicant was framed on 28.08.2024 and the examination-in-chief was recorded on 28.07.2025 i.e. after about 11 months.

11. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and she had consumed poison for the reasons best known to her and most probably it can be opined that the applicant had subjected her cruelty for demand of dowry.

12. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by
Article 21
of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 21
of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court
inSatender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
, 2022 (10) SCC 51.

13. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

14. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

15. It is a settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

16. The said viewpoint was shared in
AIR 1924 Cal 476 Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor
whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character.

17. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 ?
Emperor v. Hutchinson
and AIR 1931 All 504 ?

K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor
this Court held that High Court's bail power under
S.498
CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception.

18.
In
Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of
Article 21
of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail.

19. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under
Article 21.
Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke
Article 21
protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658;
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand
, AIR 1977 SC 2447;and
Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency
(2022) 1 SCC 695)

20. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

21. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

22. The Supreme Court in
Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India
, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the delay of more than a day in institution of FIR and the circumstances as is enumerated above in the inquest proceedings and the said consent form for indoor treatment and the name of applicant being on the consent form 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.

24. Let the applicant-Mustkeem, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

25. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 11.8.2025

Karan

(Justice Krishan Pahal)