State of U.P. vs Party(s)

3. Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Rajpoot, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been nominated in the FIR on the basis of suspicion that he in collusion with co- accused person Brajraj Yadav @ Bijli might have committed the murder of the husband of informant on 17.02.2025 after 2:30 p.m. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Prior to the said FIR, a missing report was filed by the informant, whereby she has not whispered a single word against any person whatsoever. The said missing report was entered at G.D. No.12 dated 18.02.2025 at 9:40 a.m., which indicates that it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no last scene evidence of applicant with the deceased person. There is no other 2 BAIL No. 23648 of 2025 CDR report to indicate any communication with the applicant and the deceased person or the co-accused person. The motive stands falsified from the bank records, whereby not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant from that of the deceased person, rather it is otherwise. The money has been transferred from the account of the applicant to that of the deceased person.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has simply been made an accused on the information received by the police from a squealer, which has no evidentiary value. A recovery of knife and rope has been foisted on the applicant that too after four days of the FIR. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

22.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was hand in glove with the co-accused persons, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

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.

10. 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.

11. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish 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”. 3 BAIL No. 23648 of 2025

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

13. 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.

14. 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 not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant from that of the deceased person, 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.

15. Let the applicant- Harikesh Chauhan, who involved 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.

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

17. 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. October 13, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Rajpoot, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.91 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 238, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been nominated in the FIR on the basis of suspicion that he in collusion with co- accused person Brajraj Yadav @ Bijli might have committed the murder of the husband of informant on 17.02.2025 after 2:30 p.m. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Prior to the said FIR, a missing report was filed by the informant, whereby she has not whispered a single word against any person whatsoever. The said missing report was entered at G.D. No.12 dated 18.02.2025 at 9:40 a.m., which indicates that it is a clear-cut case of false implication.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no last scene evidence of applicant with the deceased person. There is no other 2 BAIL No. 23648 of 2025 CDR report to indicate any communication with the applicant and the deceased person or the co-accused person. The motive stands falsified from the bank records, whereby not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant from that of the deceased person, rather it is otherwise. The money has been transferred from the account of the applicant to that of the deceased person.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has simply been made an accused on the information received by the police from a squealer, which has no evidentiary value. A recovery of knife and rope has been foisted on the applicant that too after four days of the FIR. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

22.02.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was hand in glove with the co-accused persons, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

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.

10. 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.

11. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish 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”. 3 BAIL No. 23648 of 2025

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

13. 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.

14. 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 not a single penny has been transferred to the account of the applicant from that of the deceased person, 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.

15. Let the applicant- Harikesh Chauhan, who involved 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.

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

17. 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. October 13, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad