High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140344 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30763 of 2023 Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Ashwani Kumar,Shyam Lal,Umesh Kumar Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bharat Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 301 of 2022, under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 27.04.2022.The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry of, thereby led her to death on 07.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR which was instituted on 07.09.2023 at about 02:30 PM. All the allegations made in the FIR are false and the FIR itself is ante timed which is but evident from the inquest report which has been filed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The said inquest report categorically indicates that there is overwriting in the case crime number and the time of offence which has been written in the second line of the right side of the inquest report. It is further argued that starting of the inquest proceeding is not mentioned although culmination of the said proceedings has been mentioned as 04:00 PM. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that FIR did not indicate about the particular demand of dowry but the said demand of dowry has been added at the stage of recording of statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. golden chain, sofa set and a car. It is further argued that the mother of the applicant works as a domestic help, as such, her social and economic condition does not permit her to maintain a car. It is further argued that both the parties were of poor economic condition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and only 2 witnesses have been examined and bailable warrant has been issued four times to P.W.2 during trial, as such, delay if any is committed by the prosecution in conclusion of trial. It is further argued that examination-in-chief of P.W.3 was undertaken on 05.08.2025 and his cross-examination is yet to be done. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nitish Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2023 SC 2149. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for two years and eleven months and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that P.W.2 was not cross-examined by the counsel for the applicant and he had come to the Court five times and the case was adjourned at one pretext or the other, as such, delay if any cannot be attributed to the prosecution only. The defence counsel or the applicant is equally responsible for the said delay, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. 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 like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer. the 12. 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). 13. 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". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said inconsistency in the inquest report as highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant which is filed as Annexure No.2 and taking into consideration the status of trial and in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nitish Chauhan (supra) 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. 15. Let the applicant- Arvind, 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 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. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 :- 18.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad