High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58892 Court No. - 65
Legal Reasoning
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2214 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Kalpana Singh Alias Gudiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiv Prakash Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. This is the second bail application and the first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.12.2024. The said order has not been passed on merits. 3. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2023, U/S 302, 120B, 316, 34 IPC, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The applicant and her husband are stated to be carrying animosity with the family of the deceased, as such, slaughtered them in the night of 21/22.10.2023 between 23.59 pm and 5.00 am. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. 7. The FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. There is no evidence, whatsoever, against the applicant. There is no recovery from his possession. Even the statements of the two witnesses namely, Mahesh Pradhan and Vikas which have been taken by the investigating officer is the hearsay evidence, which cannot be taken into consideration, whatsoever. Even the said hearsay evidence does not name the applicant. It was the husband of the applicant, who has assaulted the deceased. The two persons have been put to death and the lady was pregnant, as such, in all, three lives have been brought to an end. The case is of the highest degree of mental depravity and there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE: 10. The bail application has been opposed, but the fact that applicant has no criminal history has not been disputed. CONCLUSION: 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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”. 15. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 16. 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 for the State. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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. 18. Let the applicant- Smt. Kalpana Singh Alias Gudiya who is involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on her 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. (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 her in accordance with law. 19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 20. 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 :- 21.4.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad