High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136276 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44989 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Jai Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Kamala Shanker Yadav,Mahesh Kumar,Shri Kant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh,Satendra Bahadur Yati,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. It has been informed that IInd supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is not on record. 3. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record. 4. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 189 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Machhalishahar, District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued this bail application on the ground of period of incarceration as the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2023 and the trial is at standstill. No witness has been examined to date. Even the charge has not been framed. The applicant has nothing to do with the said delay. His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons but specific role of assaulting by gadasa has been assigned to the applicant in the statement of the witnesses subsequently. There are five injured person in the instant case. The co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail whereby the main role has been assigned to the applicant in the said orders also and the role of the applicant has been distinguished. The applicant has 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. 8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person. Even in the bail order of co-accused Amar Nath Yadav which was granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 44537 of 2023, the role of the applicant has been distinguished, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 9. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 08.08.2025. As per the said report, the charge has yet not been framed. 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 AGA 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 the like have been shown by learned AGA. 12. The said viewpoint was shared in AIR 1924 Cal 476 Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor, whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character. 13. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor v. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor, this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception. 14. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830, it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail. 15. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: 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) 16. 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". 17. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted. 18. In the case of AIR 1927 Nag 53 – Tularam v. King-Emperor the Court clarified that "death or transportation for life" in S.497 Cr.P.C. means offences with both as alternatives. Magistrates have discretion to grant bail; delays in trial weighed in favour of release. Bail granted as accused unlikely to abscond. 19. Since the applicant is in jail for more than two years and the charge has not been framed to date, the said callous approach of the prosecution, defence and the trial court as a whole stands deprecated. A person cannot be kept behind the bar when the trial is not moving ahead. This Court has no other option but with heavy heart to grant bail to the applicant. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Jai Singh Yadav, 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. 22. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 23. 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:- 12.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad