High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139143 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21556 of 2025 Applicant :- Niwas Ali Alias Naim Khan Alias Navi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Viveka Nand Rai Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Viveka Nand Rai, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2018, under Section 302 of BNS, Police Station - Barhan, District - Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Sukar Ali, are stated to have threatened the informant's minor daughter (now deceased) that they would throw acid on her to disfigure her if she did not befriend them. After her refusal, the applicant, is stated to have crushed her by an auto on 14.07.2018 at about 07:00 AM. The applicant is stated to be the driver of the alleged auto. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR is delayed by more than 13 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Initially, the FIR was instituted u/s 279, 338 & 304-A of IPC only and the final report (charge-sheet) was submitted under the same sections. The applicant had applied for bail and granted the same by the court concerned vide order dated 31.07.2018. Subsequently, during trial after the statement of the informant, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge by invoking powers u/s 323 Cr.P.C. and the case has been transformed to that of Section 302 IPC. 7. Learned counsel has argued that the said allegations are per se false. The FIR even does not mention the registered number of the alleged auto. The registration number of the auto of the co-accused has been mentioned later on during trial as an afterthought, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 8. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on the statement of the informant recorded by the trial court initially before committing the case whereby he had categorically stated in cross- examination of the informant that the applicant was driving the alleged auto. 9. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.05.2025, having 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. 10. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 11. 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 State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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) 17. 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". 18. 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. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the applicant was already released on bail in the instant case coupled by the fact that the allegation of murder have been added subsequently, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Niwas Ali Alias Naim Khan Alias Navi, 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. 21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 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. Order Date:- 14.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad