Haj not an absolute right: Allahabad HC rejects convict’s bail plea
Justice Alok Mathur, while rejecting the plea, noted, “I do not find any urgency or any such situation which may necessitate the release of the appellant from custody to perform his Haj Yatra.”
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court recently dismissed a short-term bail application filed by a convict seeking permission to undertake the Haj pilgrimage, stating that the right to perform Haj is not absolute and can be curtailed following imprisonment.
The applicant Jahid of the Bahraich district, convicted under Section 304 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, had sought short-term bail on the grounds that he was selected for Haj and had applied along with his wife before the conviction. He also cited Article 21 of the Constitution, claiming the right to travel for Haj as a fundamental liberty.
However, Justice Alok Mathur, while rejecting the plea, noted, “I do not find any urgency or any such situation which may necessitate the release of the appellant from custody to perform his Haj Yatra.”
The court clarified that while the Haj pilgrimage holds deep religious value, it does not supersede the law. “The right to do pilgrimage tour to Haj is not an absolute right but can be curtailed since the appellant has been imprisoned,” the order said.
The judge also stated that permitting the convict to leave custody for the pilgrimage could raise the risk of him evading legal accountability. “Granting bail on this point may increase the chances of him fleeing outside the clutches of the law of this country,” the court remarked in its recent order.
The bench acknowledged the religious importance of Haj for Muslims but maintained that such observances could be fulfilled after completion of the sentence. “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,” the order read.
It added that applying for the pilgrimage before conviction does not constitute sufficient grounds to grant temporary bail.
The court further observed that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it is subject to lawful restrictions. “Incarceration after a conviction fairly amounts to curtailment of the right to movement by provision of law, and accordingly the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal,” the judge stated.
