State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Salempur, District- Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, applicant is stated to be committed the murder of the deceased person and got certain videos recorded of the said incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the said videos do not show the face of the applicant so that he could not be identified, but subsequently the 2 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 statement of the applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer whereby the applicant is stated to have confessed that the said voice heard in the said video is of the applicant only. Learned counsel for applicant has stated that there is no voice test conducted by the Investigating Officer to indicate that the voice in the background is of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the second video also shows the feet of the person who had committed the said offence been put on chest of the deceased, but the said video also cannot be identified to be those of the applicant, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was procured by the Investigating Officer after duly copying the said video found from the mobile of co-accused Preeti.

8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for applicant has argued that video, if any, has been recovered from the mobile phone of co-accused, Preeti and applicant has nothing to do with the same. Even the FSL report indicates that the said video was made viral from the mobile of co-accused, Preeti. The applicant has not been found to be the person who had circulated the said video on social media.

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.

10. 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 3 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 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

11. 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”.

12. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

13. 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.

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 fact that in both the videos procured by Investigating Officer, there is no clarity that it is applicant who had committed the alleged offence as well as there is no voice test of the said videos and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie 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- Anuj @ Suryapratap Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like 4 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 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. October 13, 2025 Saif (Krishan Pahal,J.) SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Salempur, District- Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, applicant is stated to be committed the murder of the deceased person and got certain videos recorded of the said incident.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the said videos do not show the face of the applicant so that he could not be identified, but subsequently the 2 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 statement of the applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer whereby the applicant is stated to have confessed that the said voice heard in the said video is of the applicant only. Learned counsel for applicant has stated that there is no voice test conducted by the Investigating Officer to indicate that the voice in the background is of the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the second video also shows the feet of the person who had committed the said offence been put on chest of the deceased, but the said video also cannot be identified to be those of the applicant, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.09.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was procured by the Investigating Officer after duly copying the said video found from the mobile of co-accused Preeti.

8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for applicant has argued that video, if any, has been recovered from the mobile phone of co-accused, Preeti and applicant has nothing to do with the same. Even the FSL report indicates that the said video was made viral from the mobile of co-accused, Preeti. The applicant has not been found to be the person who had circulated the said video on social media.

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.

10. 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 3 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 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

11. 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”.

12. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

13. 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.

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 fact that in both the videos procured by Investigating Officer, there is no clarity that it is applicant who had committed the alleged offence as well as there is no voice test of the said videos and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie 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- Anuj @ Suryapratap Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like 4 BAIL No. 12970 of 2024 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. October 13, 2025 Saif (Krishan Pahal,J.) SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad