In the case of Thulia Kali v. The State of T.N. AIR

2. Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3) & 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Rampura, District - Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:-

4. The applicant along with co-accused person Ramcharan and 3-4 unknown persons had carried an enmity with the informant's father Vidyaram Azad (now deceased) as he used to object to their illegal activities in the school, as such, they had assaulted him with lathi, axe and spade on 23.02.2025 at about 05:30 AM. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:-

5. The FIR is delayed by about 9 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Prior to the institution of FIR, the informant had given an information to the police station on 23.02.2025 at 09:54 AM and on the basis of which, the inquest proceedings were started at 10:00 AM. The inquest report indicates that the dead body was found unattended to as the said application was entered at the police station at 09:54 AM. The inquest proceedings were completed on 23.02.2025 at 11:00 AM and the FIR has subsequently been instituted at 02:41 PM.

7. The inquest report does not indicate the name of the assailants nor does it mention anyone having witnessed the incident. Even none of the panch witnesses indicate that the deceased died due to stab wounds sustained in his head.

8. Motive can be a double-edged sword as on one hand it could be a reason for committing the offence or on the other hand, it could be a cause of false implication.

9. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case out of vengeance. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2025, having no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be released on bail.

11. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:-

12. The bail application has been opposed by stating that the applicant has committed the said offence. He is named in the FIR and it is not mandatory to mention the name of accused and the modus operandi in the inquest report.

13. In the morning of the said incident, the informant were forced to sign the application at police station, in which the name of the assailants were not mentioned and also there are eye witnesses of the incident, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

14. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. CONCLUSION:-

15. In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501 the Supreme has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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)

22. 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".

23. 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.

24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and the inordinate delay of nine hours in lodging the FIR and taking into consideration the fact that the informant had filed an application in the morning at police station in which he has not shown any person to have committed the said offence coupled by the fact that the informant is the panch witness no. 1 in the inquest report, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant- Ram Khilawan, 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.

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

27. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3) & 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Rampura, District - Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:-

4. The applicant along with co-accused person Ramcharan and 3-4 unknown persons had carried an enmity with the informant's father Vidyaram Azad (now deceased) as he used to object to their illegal activities in the school, as such, they had assaulted him with lathi, axe and spade on 23.02.2025 at about 05:30 AM. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:-

5. The FIR is delayed by about 9 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Prior to the institution of FIR, the informant had given an information to the police station on 23.02.2025 at 09:54 AM and on the basis of which, the inquest proceedings were started at 10:00 AM. The inquest report indicates that the dead body was found unattended to as the said application was entered at the police station at 09:54 AM. The inquest proceedings were completed on 23.02.2025 at 11:00 AM and the FIR has subsequently been instituted at 02:41 PM.

7. The inquest report does not indicate the name of the assailants nor does it mention anyone having witnessed the incident. Even none of the panch witnesses indicate that the deceased died due to stab wounds sustained in his head.

8. Motive can be a double-edged sword as on one hand it could be a reason for committing the offence or on the other hand, it could be a cause of false implication.

9. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case out of vengeance. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2025, having no criminal history to his credit and deserves to be released on bail.

11. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:-

12. The bail application has been opposed by stating that the applicant has committed the said offence. He is named in the FIR and it is not mandatory to mention the name of accused and the modus operandi in the inquest report.

13. In the morning of the said incident, the informant were forced to sign the application at police station, in which the name of the assailants were not mentioned and also there are eye witnesses of the incident, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

14. Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. CONCLUSION:-

15. In the case of Thulia Kali vs The State of T.N. AIR 1973 SC 501 the Supreme has held that the First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account, or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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)

22. 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".

23. 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.

24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and the inordinate delay of nine hours in lodging the FIR and taking into consideration the fact that the informant had filed an application in the morning at police station in which he has not shown any person to have committed the said offence coupled by the fact that the informant is the panch witness no. 1 in the inquest report, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant- Ram Khilawan, 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.

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

27. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad