State of U.P. vs Counsel for Applicant(s)

2. Heard Sri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.S. Tiwari, 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. 39 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 238(a) of BNS, Police Station - Kapsethi, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant against two named accused persons, Anil Kumar and Pintu and some unknown person on 26.04.2025 at 01:32 PM with the allegations that on 25.04.2025, they have committed the murder of his son.

5. 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence has been mentioned in the FIR. Even the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of one Govind and subsequently, the witnesses have been roped in, as such, the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of named accused persons.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2025, 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.

8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that a Writ Petition No. 11642 of 2025 was filed by the informant before this Court for fair investigation and, as such, the investigation was handed over to Crime Branch. After thorough investigation, the statement of three witnesses, Murali, Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand were recorded 2 BAIL No. 26634 of 2025 by the Investigating Officer and it was found that the applicant and Govind were also involved in the commissioning of said offence, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the statements of two eye- witnesses, Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand have not been appended to the affidavit filed with the bail application. Although, he has conceded the fact that the statement of eye-witness Murali and that of Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand are almost the same and had corroborated each other.

10. Learned AGA has also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

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. 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.

12. 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.

13. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2. Heard Sri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.S. Tiwari, 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. 39 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 238(a) of BNS, Police Station - Kapsethi, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. The FIR was instituted by the informant against two named accused persons, Anil Kumar and Pintu and some unknown person on 26.04.2025 at 01:32 PM with the allegations that on 25.04.2025, they have committed the murder of his son.

5. 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. No time of offence has been mentioned in the FIR. Even the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of one Govind and subsequently, the witnesses have been roped in, as such, the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of named accused persons.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.06.2025, 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.

8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that a Writ Petition No. 11642 of 2025 was filed by the informant before this Court for fair investigation and, as such, the investigation was handed over to Crime Branch. After thorough investigation, the statement of three witnesses, Murali, Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand were recorded 2 BAIL No. 26634 of 2025 by the Investigating Officer and it was found that the applicant and Govind were also involved in the commissioning of said offence, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the statements of two eye- witnesses, Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand have not been appended to the affidavit filed with the bail application. Although, he has conceded the fact that the statement of eye-witness Murali and that of Ganesh Prasad and Manish Chand are almost the same and had corroborated each other.

10. Learned AGA has also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

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. 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.

12. 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.

13. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation