High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135691 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21791 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki,Samrat Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Someshwar Pandey,Vinod Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. List has been revised. Counter affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, 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. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 14 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) & 117(3) of BNS, Police Station - Jawan, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the informant. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co- accused persons are stated to have come in an inebriated stage in the dhaba of the informant and started hurling abuses at him and his employee. After being asked to refrain from doing so, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the informant, his employee Raju and one Muneesh Kumar, causing injuries to them. 6. 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. The FIR is delayed by about 22 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel has also stated that the injured Muneesh has sustained injuries on his vital parts but the said injuries are not grievous in nature. The other two persons have not sustained any injuries whatsoever. Even the injured person and his brother have refused to get his wound stitched at J.N. Medical College, A.M.U. which was signed by the brother of the injured person also. Subsequently, the injuries have been added and it has been opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. 8. Learned counsel has also submitted that the injuries sustained on right eye of the injured person do not fall within the category of grievous in nature. Had it been so, the same would have been observed at the initial stage only. 9. Learned counsel has also contended that the applicant was enlarged on bail u/s 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed by A.C.J.M. Aligarh, as such, he is entitled for bail in the added sections as well. It is the endeavour of the informant to keep the applicant behind the jail in one pretext or the other. Even the criminal history of the applicant has wrongly mentioned by the Investigating Officer and the said fact stands mentioned in the bail rejection order whereby the Investigating Officer sought apology for the wrong done. 10. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.05.2025, 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. 11. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Magistrate concerned u/s 117(2) & 117(3) of BNS only but subsequently, the bail application before the Sessions Judge and herein have been filed in all the sections mentioned in the FIR and the added sections as well. The said anomaly speaks volume of complicity of the applicant. 12. Learned counsel for the informant has also submitted that the injured person has sustained grievous injuries as he is unable to see from his right eye. There was a retinal detachment observed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Netra Vigyan Kendra, AIIMS, New Delhi whereby it was found that there was right eye closed globe injury sequalae eith retinal detachment with cataractous lens and again the patient has been asked for re-cataract surgery at the said hospital. 13. Learned counsel has further argued that the doctor has categorically mentioned the injuries to be grievous in nature. The nasal bone of the injured person was also found fractured as the nose was deviated towards the right side, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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) 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. 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. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person coupled by the fact that the FIR is delayed by about 22 hours and there being no explanation of the said delay caused, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 23. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar, 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. 24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 25. 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:- 11.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad