State of U.P v. Party

: Abhay Mishra, Ankit Srivastava, Nitin Sharma, Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Onkar Nath Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Nandgram, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted on 12.07.2024 at 03:12 AM by the informant stating that his brother-in-law, Anuj Chaudhary along with one unknown person had caused gun-shot injury to two brothers, namely, Naveen Chaudhary and Vikas Chaudhary on 11.07.2024 at about 10:15 PM.

5. Both of them were rushed to the hospital whereby Vikas Chaudhary was declared as brought dead and the injured Naveen was admitted and his treatment was going on.

6. Subsequently, the injured Naveen also succumbed to the injuries sustained. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. It is true that it is a case of double murder and the case falls within the category of serious in nature but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

8. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up for the first time in the statement of the informant recorded u/s 180 BNSS by the Investigating Officer as an afterthought on the date of lodging of FIR.

9. The statement of the informant categorically indicates that two eye- witnesses, namely, Suraj and Dheeraj were present at the hospital and he 2 BAIL No. 16265 of 2025 instituted the FIR after admitting his brother at hospital.

10. The said eye-witnesses have subsequently nominated the applicant to be present at the time of offence and to have caused gun-shot injury to Vikas Chaudhary. It is argued that the said statement has been recorded as an afterthought.

11. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the said two eye-witnesses were present at the hospital itself and the FIR was instituted four hours after admitting the injured at hospital. Had the applicant been one of the assailants, his name would have come up at the time of institution of FIR itself.

12. The medical reports of the deceased and the injured person indicate that the date and time of arrival at hospital is 11.07.2024 around 11:00 PM. It was also observed by the doctor in the said reports that he was informed by the informant that two unknown persons had committed the said offence. Even at the time of admission of the deceased person and the injured person at hospital, none of the accused persons were nominated. The names have been added out of vengeance.

13. Criminal history of seven cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in six of those cases, he is on bail and the seventh case is under the U.P. Gangsters Act in which he has yet to apply for bail.

14. It is also argued that the accused persons have been increased from two to four in number, which also speaks volume of false implication. Even otherwise, one of the accused persons is the father of the named accused person, Anuj Chaudhary, as such, his name should have at least come up at the time of institution of FIR.

15. 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. He is languishing in jail since 12.07.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

16. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the statement of the informant was recorded promptly on the date of institution of FIR itself and he has nominated the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

17. 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. 3 BAIL No. 16265 of 2025 Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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 State Law Officer.

19. 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).

20. 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".

21. 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 applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of the informant recorded u/s 180 BNSS, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Kuldeep, 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.

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

24. 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 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Abhay Mishra, Ankit Srivastava, Nitin Sharma, Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Onkar Nath Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Nandgram, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted on 12.07.2024 at 03:12 AM by the informant stating that his brother-in-law, Anuj Chaudhary along with one unknown person had caused gun-shot injury to two brothers, namely, Naveen Chaudhary and Vikas Chaudhary on 11.07.2024 at about 10:15 PM.

5. Both of them were rushed to the hospital whereby Vikas Chaudhary was declared as brought dead and the injured Naveen was admitted and his treatment was going on.

6. Subsequently, the injured Naveen also succumbed to the injuries sustained. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. It is true that it is a case of double murder and the case falls within the category of serious in nature but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

8. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up for the first time in the statement of the informant recorded u/s 180 BNSS by the Investigating Officer as an afterthought on the date of lodging of FIR.

9. The statement of the informant categorically indicates that two eye- witnesses, namely, Suraj and Dheeraj were present at the hospital and he 2 BAIL No. 16265 of 2025 instituted the FIR after admitting his brother at hospital.

10. The said eye-witnesses have subsequently nominated the applicant to be present at the time of offence and to have caused gun-shot injury to Vikas Chaudhary. It is argued that the said statement has been recorded as an afterthought.

11. It is a clear cut case of false implication as the said two eye-witnesses were present at the hospital itself and the FIR was instituted four hours after admitting the injured at hospital. Had the applicant been one of the assailants, his name would have come up at the time of institution of FIR itself.

12. The medical reports of the deceased and the injured person indicate that the date and time of arrival at hospital is 11.07.2024 around 11:00 PM. It was also observed by the doctor in the said reports that he was informed by the informant that two unknown persons had committed the said offence. Even at the time of admission of the deceased person and the injured person at hospital, none of the accused persons were nominated. The names have been added out of vengeance.

13. Criminal history of seven cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in six of those cases, he is on bail and the seventh case is under the U.P. Gangsters Act in which he has yet to apply for bail.

14. It is also argued that the accused persons have been increased from two to four in number, which also speaks volume of false implication. Even otherwise, one of the accused persons is the father of the named accused person, Anuj Chaudhary, as such, his name should have at least come up at the time of institution of FIR.

15. 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. He is languishing in jail since 12.07.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

16. The bail application has been vehemently opposed on the ground that the statement of the informant was recorded promptly on the date of institution of FIR itself and he has nominated the applicant, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

17. 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. 3 BAIL No. 16265 of 2025 Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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 State Law Officer.

19. 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).

20. 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".

21. 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 applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of the informant recorded u/s 180 BNSS, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Kuldeep, 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.

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

24. 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 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad