Last Updated:
Parvez Alam was arrested in June 2021 in connection with a case registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
The Allahabad High Court ordered his release on bail. (File pic)
For more than four years, Parvez Alam remained behind bars in Kushinagar, accused in a dowry death case. Yet, not a single charge was framed against him. On September 4, the Allahabad High Court (HC) stepped in, calling time on the prolonged incarceration and ordering his release on bail.
Alam was arrested in June 2021 in connection with a case registered under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at Sevrahi police station. Since then, he had been lodged in jail, even as the trial court struggled to begin proceedings. The delay, his lawyers said, stemmed largely from his treatment at a mental hospital in Varanasi.
Recommended Stories
Justice Krishan Pahal, who heard the bail plea, pointed to a fundamental principle: jail cannot become punishment before conviction. “Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India,” the court observed, echoing repeated warnings from the Supreme Court.
The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the allegations warranted continued custody. But the court noted the ground reality that Alam had spent over four years in prison with no charges framed. A status report from the trial court confirmed the deadlock.
In support of his decision, Justice Pahal cited several Supreme Court rulings, including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra (2024), where the top court freed a man jailed as an undertrial for four years without trial progress. Other references included V. Senthil Balaji v Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and Ramnath Mishra v CBI (2025), both of which flagged the clash between prolonged custody and constitutional rights.
The Court also drew on the long-standing principle from Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor (1978), where the Supreme Court had warned that bail must not be withheld to punish. “The requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial,” Justice Pahal reiterated.
Allowing the application, court directed that Alam be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions. He must not tamper with evidence, must not intimidate witnesses, and must appear before the trial court whenever required. Any breach, the court cautioned, would invite cancellation of bail.
The Court also stressed that its observations should not prejudice the trial court.
About the Author
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
September 09, 2025, 16:49 IST
Loading comments…
Read More
