State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.458 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant, who happens to be the maternal uncle of the deceased person, alongwith his two sons Mukul and Ankush is stated to have committed the murder of wife of the informant in the morning of

08.11.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. It is true that the applicant is not named in the FIR, but prior to the said institution of FIR on 08.11.2024 at 06:51 p.m., an information was given by the same informant at the police station which was entered at G.D. No.30 at 10:35 a.m. on 08.11.2024 itself and thereby he had mentioned the names of two sons of the applicant, namely, Mukul and Ankush, to have committed the murder of his wife. 2 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

6. The said G.D. entry does not whisper a single word against the applicant. Had the applicant committed the said offence, his name would have been found mentioned in the said G.D. entry also.

7. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and it is delayed by about eight hours from the said information entered in G.D., as such, the intervening time is the reason for false implication of the applicant after legal consultation.

8. It has subsequently come up in the statement of the sister of the applicant Smt. Kavita that the applicant and his son Ankush had caught hold of the deceased person and his other son Mukul had hit two gunshot to the deceased person. One from the back and another from the front side.

9. Even the statement of the mother of deceased person, who happens to be the sister of the applicant, indicates that the main role of firing and causing gunshot injury to the deceased person has been assigned to Mukul only, as such, the case of the applicant stands distinguished.

10. Much reliance has been placed on the statements of two other independent witnesses, namely, Subhash Chandra Rathi and Jaivindra Singh Rathi, who have categorically stated that they have seen the son of the applicant Mukul branding a C.M.P. in his hand coming out of the house and stating that he had committed the murder of his sister Himanshi as she had married without his consent vide a court marriage and he alongwith his brother Ankush had taken away the dead body in a Swift car. The applicant is stated to have left the house later on.

11. The said statements are covered by Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as they fall within the category of res gestae, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail as his role stands distinguished to the main accused person Mukul and his brother Ankush.

12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.11.2024 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/INFORMANT: 3 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

13. All the three accused persons had acted with common intention and the common intention can also be drawn from the fact that even the two independent witnesses have stated that the applicant had followed the main accused person Mukul and his brother Ankush and they had taken the dead body in the car, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The applicant is the owner of the said car. CONCLUSION:

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 A.G.A./State Law Officer 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 4 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

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 the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the two brother, namely, Mukul and Ankush, and his name was not found in the original G.D. No.30 at 10:35 a.m. on 08.11.2024 itself, 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- Bharatveer 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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. October 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.458 of 2024, under Sections 3(5), 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant, who happens to be the maternal uncle of the deceased person, alongwith his two sons Mukul and Ankush is stated to have committed the murder of wife of the informant in the morning of

08.11.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. It is true that the applicant is not named in the FIR, but prior to the said institution of FIR on 08.11.2024 at 06:51 p.m., an information was given by the same informant at the police station which was entered at G.D. No.30 at 10:35 a.m. on 08.11.2024 itself and thereby he had mentioned the names of two sons of the applicant, namely, Mukul and Ankush, to have committed the murder of his wife. 2 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

6. The said G.D. entry does not whisper a single word against the applicant. Had the applicant committed the said offence, his name would have been found mentioned in the said G.D. entry also.

7. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and it is delayed by about eight hours from the said information entered in G.D., as such, the intervening time is the reason for false implication of the applicant after legal consultation.

8. It has subsequently come up in the statement of the sister of the applicant Smt. Kavita that the applicant and his son Ankush had caught hold of the deceased person and his other son Mukul had hit two gunshot to the deceased person. One from the back and another from the front side.

9. Even the statement of the mother of deceased person, who happens to be the sister of the applicant, indicates that the main role of firing and causing gunshot injury to the deceased person has been assigned to Mukul only, as such, the case of the applicant stands distinguished.

10. Much reliance has been placed on the statements of two other independent witnesses, namely, Subhash Chandra Rathi and Jaivindra Singh Rathi, who have categorically stated that they have seen the son of the applicant Mukul branding a C.M.P. in his hand coming out of the house and stating that he had committed the murder of his sister Himanshi as she had married without his consent vide a court marriage and he alongwith his brother Ankush had taken away the dead body in a Swift car. The applicant is stated to have left the house later on.

11. The said statements are covered by Section 4 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, as they fall within the category of res gestae, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail as his role stands distinguished to the main accused person Mukul and his brother Ankush.

12. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.11.2024 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/INFORMANT: 3 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

13. All the three accused persons had acted with common intention and the common intention can also be drawn from the fact that even the two independent witnesses have stated that the applicant had followed the main accused person Mukul and his brother Ankush and they had taken the dead body in the car, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The applicant is the owner of the said car. CONCLUSION:

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 A.G.A./State Law Officer 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 4 BAIL No. 8379 of 2025

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 the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the two brother, namely, Mukul and Ankush, and his name was not found in the original G.D. No.30 at 10:35 a.m. on 08.11.2024 itself, 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- Bharatveer 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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. October 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad