Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2024, under Sections 64(1) & 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Shivrajpur, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently in the statement of two witnesses, Shivam and Jai Prakash, who are stated to have suspected by the motorcycle which was kept parked nearby the house of the deceased person and belong to the applicant.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations against the applicant are per se false. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was the owner of the alleged motorcycle as the number of the motorcycle has not been mentioned anywhere. The postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as no injury has been observed on the genital area of the victim. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and the viscera report is still awaited.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of Kumari Laxmi, niece 2 BAIL No. 28241 of 2025 of the deceased person and was sleeping nearby the deceased person, has been recorded subsequently. She has stated in her statement that the deceased person had gone to prepare tea but she is not an eye-witness as she has not seen the applicant nearby the place of incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

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

10. 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 AGA.

11. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 240 of 2024, under Sections 64(1) & 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Shivrajpur, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently in the statement of two witnesses, Shivam and Jai Prakash, who are stated to have suspected by the motorcycle which was kept parked nearby the house of the deceased person and belong to the applicant.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the allegations against the applicant are per se false. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was the owner of the alleged motorcycle as the number of the motorcycle has not been mentioned anywhere. The postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as no injury has been observed on the genital area of the victim. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved and the viscera report is still awaited.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of Kumari Laxmi, niece 2 BAIL No. 28241 of 2025 of the deceased person and was sleeping nearby the deceased person, has been recorded subsequently. She has stated in her statement that the deceased person had gone to prepare tea but she is not an eye-witness as she has not seen the applicant nearby the place of incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

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

10. 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 AGA.

11. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v.