The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another

3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 26.01.2024 at 20:33 hours against unknown persons, the informant resides in Dehradun alongwith his children and his father stayed at the village. On

23.01.2024 at about 03:30 pm, the informant received a phone call from his bhabhi Sudesh informing about death of his father. The informant reached the village alongwith his children on

24.01.2024 at about 07:00 am and got the post mortem conducted after which the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is said to have been taken place on 23.1.2024 but the F.I.R. of the same has been lodged after three days of the incident without any plausible explanation on 26.1.2024. He next submits that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. His name as an accused in the present surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of co-accused Sudesh. Except for the confessional statement of co-accused Sudesh, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the present applicant in conspiring the murder of the deceased. The confessional statement cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. He further submits that the recovery of mobile phone shown from the applicant after four days of the incident is planted one and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The applicant has no criminal history as the same has been stated in paragraph no.31 of the bail application. He also submits that similarly placed co-accused Sudesh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 14.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17618 of 2024 and since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Sudesh, hence he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of merits as well as parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2024. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that similarly placed co- accused has been granted bail by this Court.

6. 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 he 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

7. 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 A.G.A. for the State.

8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the present bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Faridul FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 26.01.2024 at 20:33 hours against unknown persons, the informant resides in Dehradun alongwith his children and his father stayed at the village. On

23.01.2024 at about 03:30 pm, the informant received a phone call from his bhabhi Sudesh informing about death of his father. The informant reached the village alongwith his children on

24.01.2024 at about 07:00 am and got the post mortem conducted after which the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is said to have been taken place on 23.1.2024 but the F.I.R. of the same has been lodged after three days of the incident without any plausible explanation on 26.1.2024. He next submits that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. His name as an accused in the present surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of co-accused Sudesh. Except for the confessional statement of co-accused Sudesh, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the present applicant in conspiring the murder of the deceased. The confessional statement cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. He further submits that the recovery of mobile phone shown from the applicant after four days of the incident is planted one and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The applicant has no criminal history as the same has been stated in paragraph no.31 of the bail application. He also submits that similarly placed co-accused Sudesh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 14.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17618 of 2024 and since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Sudesh, hence he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of merits as well as parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2024. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that similarly placed co- accused has been granted bail by this Court.

6. 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 he 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

7. 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 A.G.A. for the State.

8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused- applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the present bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Faridul FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad