High Court · 2025

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85, 352 & 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bariyarpur, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person, respectively and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. It is nowhere mentioned in the FIR as to what was demanded as dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

6. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 06.02.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt. However, learned AGA has not disputed the fact that there is no mentioning of details of demand of dowry in the FIR and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

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. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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)

15. 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".

16. 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.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and also there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled by the fact that there is no mentioning of specific details of dowry demand in the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Satyanarayan and Panmati, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants 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) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85, 352 & 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bariyarpur, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person, respectively and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. It is nowhere mentioned in the FIR as to what was demanded as dowry, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

6. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 06.02.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt. However, learned AGA has not disputed the fact that there is no mentioning of details of demand of dowry in the FIR and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

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. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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)

15. 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".

16. 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.

17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and also there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled by the fact that there is no mentioning of specific details of dowry demand in the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicants- Satyanarayan and Panmati, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants 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) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad