No Absolute Right To Do Haj Pilgrimage: Allahabad High Court Rejects Convict's Bail Plea
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed the Application stating that it may increase the chances of the Appellant, convicted under Section 304 of the IPC, fleeing the country.
The Allahabad High Court denies a convict’s short term bail Application for ‘Haj Yatra,’ while explaining that the right to do Pilgrimage tour to Haj is not an absolute right but can be curtailed since the Appellant has been imprisoned.
The Court dismissed the Application stating that it may increase the chances of the Appellant, convicted under Section 304 of the IPC, fleeing outside the clutches of law of the Country. “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,” the Court held.
A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that “the right to do Pilgrimage tour to Haj is not an absolute right but can be curtailed since the appellant has been imprisoned and granting bail on this point may increase the chances of him fleeing outside the clutches of law of this country. Such religious veneration can be duly exercised by him after serving his time in prison since there is no religious mandate to be complied with.”
Advocate Nripendra Mishra appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts
The Appellant had applied for short-term bail, submitting that he had been selected to go on the Haj Yatra. He further submitted that he had applied for the pilgrimage before his conviction with his wife and had deposited the required fees. He argued that the right to travel for Haj is a constitutional right.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court acknowledged the significance of the Haj obligation for Muslims but stated that merely having applied for it prior to conviction is not a sufficient reason to grant short-term bail.
“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. Article 21 grants the person liberty to individual in accordance with law and it is injunction against the State not to deprive any one except in accordance with law. Incarceration subsequent to a conviction fairly amounts to curtail of the right to movement in accordance with provision of law and accordingly the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench pointed out, “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”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in the short term application, the same is accordingly dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Jahid v. State Of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1102 of 2025)