High Court

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about ten months before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 17.2.2025 at 01:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is husband of the deceased person, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the viscera report indicates presence of organophosphorus insecticide poison in it. The inquest proceedings were complete on the date of offence itself and the family members of the deceased were present at that time, but there is no whispering of a single word against the applicant regarding demand of dowry at that stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no particular demand of dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. 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. 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 another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

10. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

11. It is a 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476, whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character.

13. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor Vs. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor, this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception.

14. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail.

15. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695).

16. 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".

17. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of five days in institution of FIR and there being no specific demand of dowry coupled by the fact that family members of the deceased person were present at the time of inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Anuj Kumar, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

21. 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 :- 14.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about ten months before the incident. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 17.2.2025 at 01:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is husband of the deceased person, but he has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the viscera report indicates presence of organophosphorus insecticide poison in it. The inquest proceedings were complete on the date of offence itself and the family members of the deceased were present at that time, but there is no whispering of a single word against the applicant regarding demand of dowry at that stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no particular demand of dowry, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. 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. 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 another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

10. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

11. It is a 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476, whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character.

13. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor Vs. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor, this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception.

14. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail.

15. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695).

16. 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".

17. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of five days in institution of FIR and there being no specific demand of dowry coupled by the fact that family members of the deceased person were present at the time of inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant- Anuj Kumar, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

21. 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 :- 14.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal)