The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. And Another

3. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Suman, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant and two other co-accused persons had gone with the deceased person in the night of 19.04.2025 and he was missing since then and as such, missing report was instituted by him at the police station the same day. But subsequently, the dead body of the deceased person was recovered from the bank of river, whereby the FIR was instituted on

25.04.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The missing report does not whisper a single word against the 2 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 applicant or any other accused persons, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

7. Leaned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only. Subsequently two witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely, Shyamvir and Vipnesh, who are stated to have seen the applicant and the deceased person alongwith other co-accused persons, but the said statement has been recorded belatedly.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that a recovery of sickle has been foisted on the applicant and the co-accused person Shyamvir. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

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.

12. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish 3 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

14. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. It is 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the missing report does not indicate any foul play at the part of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Deepu, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

19. 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 4 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 28, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)

3. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Suman, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Rajepur, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the applicant and two other co-accused persons had gone with the deceased person in the night of 19.04.2025 and he was missing since then and as such, missing report was instituted by him at the police station the same day. But subsequently, the dead body of the deceased person was recovered from the bank of river, whereby the FIR was instituted on

25.04.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The missing report does not whisper a single word against the 2 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 applicant or any other accused persons, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

7. Leaned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only. Subsequently two witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely, Shyamvir and Vipnesh, who are stated to have seen the applicant and the deceased person alongwith other co-accused persons, but the said statement has been recorded belatedly.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that a recovery of sickle has been foisted on the applicant and the co-accused person Shyamvir. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

10. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

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.

12. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish 3 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

14. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. It is 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the missing report does not indicate any foul play at the part of the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Deepu, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

19. 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 4 BAIL No. 23023 of 2025 opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 28, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)