State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Asmoli, District - Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that a lady, Kanchan Saini, involved in cutting grass, found the dead body of the deceased person in the agricultural field on 16.9.2024 at about 04:00 AM whereby it came to the knowledge of the informant as he was informed by the eye-witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary that they had seen the deceased person with the applicant on 15.09.2024 near panchayat bhawan, as such, the applicant might have committed the said offence.

5. Learned counsel has argued that the allegations are per se false. The said witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary along with informant are the panch witnesses in the inquest proceedings conducted on 16.9.2024 but they have not whispered a single word against the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. It is also argued that had the said witnesses seen the applicant with the deceased person at panchayat bhawan, the said fact would have been mentioned at the time of recording of inquest proceedings itself but the said inordinate delay of narrating the said incident speaks volume of false implication.

6. Learned counsel has further stated 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. The FIR is delayed by about 20 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused either. The motive as mentioned in the FIR is unbelievable.

7. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2024, 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. 2 BAIL No. 2662 of 2025

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. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the said witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary and the informant have not whisper a single word against the applicant at the time of recording of inquest proceedings, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Rampal Sharma, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant 3 BAIL No. 2662 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 266 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Asmoli, District - Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that a lady, Kanchan Saini, involved in cutting grass, found the dead body of the deceased person in the agricultural field on 16.9.2024 at about 04:00 AM whereby it came to the knowledge of the informant as he was informed by the eye-witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary that they had seen the deceased person with the applicant on 15.09.2024 near panchayat bhawan, as such, the applicant might have committed the said offence.

5. Learned counsel has argued that the allegations are per se false. The said witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary along with informant are the panch witnesses in the inquest proceedings conducted on 16.9.2024 but they have not whispered a single word against the applicant, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. It is also argued that had the said witnesses seen the applicant with the deceased person at panchayat bhawan, the said fact would have been mentioned at the time of recording of inquest proceedings itself but the said inordinate delay of narrating the said incident speaks volume of false implication.

6. Learned counsel has further stated 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. The FIR is delayed by about 20 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused either. The motive as mentioned in the FIR is unbelievable.

7. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.10.2024, 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. 2 BAIL No. 2662 of 2025

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. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the said witnesses, Bhartendu Sharma and Sanjay Chaudhary and the informant have not whisper a single word against the applicant at the time of recording of inquest proceedings, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Rampal Sharma, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant 3 BAIL No. 2662 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad