Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1221 (ALL)

Abuzaid @ Al-Hindi v. State of U. P.

2023-05-02

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SAROJ YADAV

body2023
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Delay in filing the present appeal within 90 days was condoned on 8.8.2022. Detailed objections have been filed by the learned A.G.A. for the State opposing the prayer for bail. The Special Judge has rejected the bail application vide order dated 22.3.2022 on the ground that prima facie material collected against the present appellant constitutes a cognizable offence and there are no sufficient grounds for enlarging the appellant on bail. 3. The appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 has arisen out of the order passed by the trial court in case Crime No. 08 of 2017, under Sections 120B, 121A, 153B I.P.C. and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, police station A.T.S., district Lucknow. 4. At this stage, on a pointed query made to the learned A.G.A. as to the stage of the trial, it is replied that out of 25 witnesses four witnesses have already been examined. It is also informed that there is no possibility of the present appellant fleeing away to evade trial for the reason that the passport of the present appellant already expired is in the custody of the investigating agency. 5. The appellant has argued that there is delay in the production of the witnesses by the prosecution and in this manner there is every likelihood of the trial being delayed. Some of the co-accused persons at the stage of recording of statements confessed their guilt and they have been convicted with the punishment of sentence undergone i.e. 5 years incarceration coupled with the stipulation of fine as is evident from annexure 4 to the counter affidavit. The appellant on the contrary has been in judicial custody for about 6 years. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the continued incarceration of the present appellant who has denied the charges and pleaded innocent is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India particularly when the incriminating material in its entirety has been collected and is being subjected to the process of law. Therefore, any apprehension of any kind that the appellant may indulge into tampering of the evidence or influencing the witnesses is completely misplaced. The appellant who is a poor electric technician living from hand to mouth is attributed a suspicion blown beyond proportion. 7. Therefore, any apprehension of any kind that the appellant may indulge into tampering of the evidence or influencing the witnesses is completely misplaced. The appellant who is a poor electric technician living from hand to mouth is attributed a suspicion blown beyond proportion. 7. Learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail has drawn our attention to the transcription of a group Whats-app messages to which the present appellant was a member. Although we do not sense anything serious from the messages in question and the same have not been connected to any occurrence whatsoever. It is true that courts of law cannot shut eyes to any suspicious communication which a culprit is bound to explain but suspicion alone does not qualify the requirements of fair procedure to justify incarceration. 8. Having regard to the entire material available on record coupled with the fact that the appellant is in jail for about six years and the pending trial before the special court is bound to take time, prima facie, a case for grant of bail is made out subject to the conditions provided hereunder. 9. Let the appellant namely Abuzaid @ Al-Hindi be released on bail in case Crime No. 08 of 2017, under Sections 120B, 121A, 153B I.P.C. and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, police station A.T.S., district Lucknow on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It is however provided that the appellant shall mark his presence in local police station in the first week of every month to keep the local police informed and shall cooperate with the trial without seeking any undue adjournment. The surrendered passport shall not be revail dated without prior permission of the trial court. 10. For the reasons recorded herein-above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed in the appeal is set aside.