The Allahabad High Court denied bail to a man convicted under IPC Section 304, ruling that Haj is not an absolute right and expressing concern that allowing travel could increase the risk of him absconding.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a convict’s application for short-term bail to undertake the Haj pilgrimage, clarifying that the right to go on such a pilgrimage is not an absolute right and can be limited due to the appellant’s imprisonment.
The Court dismissed the application, expressing concerns that granting bail might increase the risk of the appellant, who was convicted under Section 304 of the IPC, fleeing justice.
The Court stated,
“I do not find any urgency or any such situation which may necessity the release of the appellant from custody to perform his Haj Yatra,”
Justice Alok Mathur, presiding over a Single Bench, emphasized that the right to embark on a Haj pilgrimage can be curtailed during imprisonment, noting that allowing bail could facilitate the appellant’s escape from legal consequences.
He suggested that the appellant could fulfill his religious obligations after serving his sentence, as there is no religious requirement that mandates immediate participation.
Advocate Nripendra Mishra represented the appellant, who had sought short-term bail on the grounds that he was selected for the Haj Yatra.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Quashes Blacklisting Orders Against Haj Group Organizers
He argued that he had applied for the pilgrimage before his conviction, along with his wife, and had already paid the necessary fees, claiming that the right to travel for Haj is a constitutional right.
While acknowledging the importance of the Haj pilgrimage for Muslims, the High Court asserted that simply having applied for it before conviction does not justify granting bail.
The Court remarked,
“I also take due consideration that the appellant would be at liberty to exercise his option for Haj after completing his sentence in accordance with law,”
They noted that Article 21 ensures individual liberty in accordance with the law and that incarceration following a conviction is a lawful restriction on the right to movement, which cannot be deemed arbitrary or illegal.
Also Read: Marriage Rights for ‘Muslim Girls’ After Puberty| SC to Hear NCPCR’s Plea
The Bench also highlighted,
“The likelihood of a prisoner absconding is one of the questions which a court has to ponder upon while deciding the bail application or fixing the sureties demands.”
Therefore, the Court concluded,
“For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in the short term application, the same is accordingly dismissed.”
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Jahid v. State Of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 1102 of 2025)