The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Sadat, District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the murder of husband of the informant in the night of 15.5.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant has categorically stated that she had seen the applicant concealing the country- made pistol beneath the clothes as she had woken up in the night at 11:00 p.m. to ease herself out and had seen the applicant concealing the said 2 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 weapon in the clothes at 11:45 p.m., but she did not suspect anything. Although she had heard sound and thought it to be of fire-cracker as during the said time there were several marriages going on in the area.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that the informant has also stated that in the morning when she learnt about the murder of her husband, she immediately came to understand that it was the applicant who committed the said offence. The said statement has been recorded as an afterthought as an altercation is stated to have been entered into between the applicant and the deceased person about eleven days before the incident.

8. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there was no motive for the applicant to commit murder of the deceased person as the said altercation was with the son of the deceased person only. The applicant has simply been made an accused on account of said enmity with the son of deceased person. The applicant has been implicated in this case as an afterthought.

9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant had seen the applicant taking a country-made pistol and concealing it after she put torch light on him and the applicant was seen near the place of occurrence. As such, he is not entitled for bail.

11. 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 of bail is made out.

12. 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.

13. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian 3 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 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.

14. 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".

15. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

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 nobody has seen the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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- Piyush Rai Alias Shailendra Rai, 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 pressurize/intimidate 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 4 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 27, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Sadat, District- Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed the murder of husband of the informant in the night of 15.5.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant has categorically stated that she had seen the applicant concealing the country- made pistol beneath the clothes as she had woken up in the night at 11:00 p.m. to ease herself out and had seen the applicant concealing the said 2 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 weapon in the clothes at 11:45 p.m., but she did not suspect anything. Although she had heard sound and thought it to be of fire-cracker as during the said time there were several marriages going on in the area.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that the informant has also stated that in the morning when she learnt about the murder of her husband, she immediately came to understand that it was the applicant who committed the said offence. The said statement has been recorded as an afterthought as an altercation is stated to have been entered into between the applicant and the deceased person about eleven days before the incident.

8. It is next contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there was no motive for the applicant to commit murder of the deceased person as the said altercation was with the son of the deceased person only. The applicant has simply been made an accused on account of said enmity with the son of deceased person. The applicant has been implicated in this case as an afterthought.

9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant had seen the applicant taking a country-made pistol and concealing it after she put torch light on him and the applicant was seen near the place of occurrence. As such, he is not entitled for bail.

11. 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 of bail is made out.

12. 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.

13. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian 3 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 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.

14. 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".

15. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

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 nobody has seen the incident, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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- Piyush Rai Alias Shailendra Rai, 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 pressurize/intimidate 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 4 BAIL No. 26594 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 27, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)