High Court

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shaurya Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Sections 85 & 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station - Line Bazar, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant's daughter as per Hindu Rites on 18.04.2016 and out of the said wedlock, a boy was born, who is aged about seven years at this time.

5. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry.

6. It is alleged that on 12.03.2025 at about 04:00 PM, the victim had called the informant from her mobile number 9250519646 and told that the applicant demanded Rs.10 lakhs as dowry from her. She has also told that she was beaten up by the applicant and subsequently, her mobile was found switched off. Thereafter, the informant had called the mobile of the applicant number 8586899266, which was also found switched off, as such, she reached the house of her daughter in the morning of 13.03.2025 and found her room locked from outside, as such, there was apprehension in her mind that the applicant has committed murder of her daughter. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The FIR is delayed by more than ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence is mentioned in it.

8. The offence is stated to have been committed between the evening of 12.03.2025 to the morning of 13.03.2025.

9. It is true that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem smothering but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

10. The informant did not file a complaint in the matter till 13.03.2025 at 04:57 PM, as such, the said delay speaks volume of false implication.

11. Subsequent to institution of the said FIR, the inquest proceedings were undertaken. The inquest report categorically indicates that the lock of the deceased's room was broken open and her dead body was retrieved from it. The said fact implies that it is a blind murder and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion.

12. The applicant was employed in Jammu and the deceased had returned from Jammu to the place of occurrence i.e. Jaunpur about one week prior to the incident as she was staying at Jaunpur for better education of their son.

13. The new witness has been roped in later on, namely, Abhishek Singh, who has stated that he had seen the applicant and his son leaving the house secretly in the morning of 13.03.2025 at about 05:00 AM. He had even enquired about from the applicant but the applicant did not answer it, as such, he also suspected that the applicant might have committed the said offence. The said statement had been added to strengthen the weak prosecution story.

14. The statement of seven years old child of the applicant has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer as it was he, who could have narrated the real picture of the incident.

15. The postmortem report indicates that the rigor mortis was present on the lower part of the body of the deceased person, as such, the offence is of the night of 12/13.03.2025.

16. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

17. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. CONCLUSION:

18. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

19. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

20. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

21. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

22. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial, the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the room of the deceased person was found locked from outside and the statement of the child has not been recorded by the investigating officer, prima facie, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Ashu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

25. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

26. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 21.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shaurya Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Sections 85 & 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station - Line Bazar, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant's daughter as per Hindu Rites on 18.04.2016 and out of the said wedlock, a boy was born, who is aged about seven years at this time.

5. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry.

6. It is alleged that on 12.03.2025 at about 04:00 PM, the victim had called the informant from her mobile number 9250519646 and told that the applicant demanded Rs.10 lakhs as dowry from her. She has also told that she was beaten up by the applicant and subsequently, her mobile was found switched off. Thereafter, the informant had called the mobile of the applicant number 8586899266, which was also found switched off, as such, she reached the house of her daughter in the morning of 13.03.2025 and found her room locked from outside, as such, there was apprehension in her mind that the applicant has committed murder of her daughter. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The FIR is delayed by more than ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence is mentioned in it.

8. The offence is stated to have been committed between the evening of 12.03.2025 to the morning of 13.03.2025.

9. It is true that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem smothering but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

10. The informant did not file a complaint in the matter till 13.03.2025 at 04:57 PM, as such, the said delay speaks volume of false implication.

11. Subsequent to institution of the said FIR, the inquest proceedings were undertaken. The inquest report categorically indicates that the lock of the deceased's room was broken open and her dead body was retrieved from it. The said fact implies that it is a blind murder and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion.

12. The applicant was employed in Jammu and the deceased had returned from Jammu to the place of occurrence i.e. Jaunpur about one week prior to the incident as she was staying at Jaunpur for better education of their son.

13. The new witness has been roped in later on, namely, Abhishek Singh, who has stated that he had seen the applicant and his son leaving the house secretly in the morning of 13.03.2025 at about 05:00 AM. He had even enquired about from the applicant but the applicant did not answer it, as such, he also suspected that the applicant might have committed the said offence. The said statement had been added to strengthen the weak prosecution story.

14. The statement of seven years old child of the applicant has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer as it was he, who could have narrated the real picture of the incident.

15. The postmortem report indicates that the rigor mortis was present on the lower part of the body of the deceased person, as such, the offence is of the night of 12/13.03.2025.

16. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE:

17. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. CONCLUSION:

18. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

19. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

20. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

21. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

22. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial, the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the room of the deceased person was found locked from outside and the statement of the child has not been recorded by the investigating officer, prima facie, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

24. Let the applicant- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Ashu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

25. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

26. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 21.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal)