High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.703 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the son of the applicant as per Hindu Rites about five years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, thereby slaughtered her on 25.9.2024 at about 09:30 p.m.

5. The victim is stated to be pregnant by about seven months at the time of incident. The FIR itself mentions that applicant had informed the informant about the said incident in the night of 26.9.2024 at about 01:00 a.m. It is also stated in the FIR that the deceased person has not been slaughtered by any outsider rather it is the applicant and other family members who have slaughtered her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The said allegations are false as it is an admitted fact that applicant had given information to the informant regarding the incident in the same night of the incident i.e. 25/26.9.2024 at about 01:00 a.m.

8. The son of the applicant has also sustained grievous injuries that are lacerated wound and multiple incised wounds on his body. The said injuries are grievous in nature, although they are opined to be simple in nature by the doctor concerned.

9. It has come up during investigation that son of the applicant was going to the police station to lodge the FIR, but was advised by the police to get himself treated before institution of FIR. The distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the informant is not more than 50-60 kms. and the inordinate delay of about 12 hours in institution of FIR stands unexplained, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are grievous injuries on the body of the deceased person and she was pregnant at an advanced stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of murder and not of suicide, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

14. 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.

15. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that son of the applicant had also sustained grievous injuries coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by about twelve hours, 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.

20. Let the applicant- Vipati Ram involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. 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 :- 14.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.703 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the son of the applicant as per Hindu Rites about five years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakhs as dowry, thereby slaughtered her on 25.9.2024 at about 09:30 p.m.

5. The victim is stated to be pregnant by about seven months at the time of incident. The FIR itself mentions that applicant had informed the informant about the said incident in the night of 26.9.2024 at about 01:00 a.m. It is also stated in the FIR that the deceased person has not been slaughtered by any outsider rather it is the applicant and other family members who have slaughtered her. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

7. The said allegations are false as it is an admitted fact that applicant had given information to the informant regarding the incident in the same night of the incident i.e. 25/26.9.2024 at about 01:00 a.m.

8. The son of the applicant has also sustained grievous injuries that are lacerated wound and multiple incised wounds on his body. The said injuries are grievous in nature, although they are opined to be simple in nature by the doctor concerned.

9. It has come up during investigation that son of the applicant was going to the police station to lodge the FIR, but was advised by the police to get himself treated before institution of FIR. The distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the informant is not more than 50-60 kms. and the inordinate delay of about 12 hours in institution of FIR stands unexplained, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are grievous injuries on the body of the deceased person and she was pregnant at an advanced stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of murder and not of suicide, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

14. 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.

15. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that son of the applicant had also sustained grievous injuries coupled by the fact that FIR is delayed by about twelve hours, 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.

20. Let the applicant- Vipati Ram involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. 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 :- 14.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad