High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 238, 351(3), 352, 61(2), 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ahirauli Bazar, District- Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 18.2.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have beaten her up on 6.3.2025 at about 11:00 p.m. and the said fact was narrated by the deceased to her family members. When the informant called the son of the applicant on phone he did not let him talk to the deceased and even kept on dillydallying with the matter and he told the informant on 8.3.2025 at about 06:00 a.m. that the deceased was missing since night.

5. It is further alleged that the applicant is stated to have filed a missing report at the police station on 10.3.2025 just to conceal the fact of murder of the deceased person. The applicant in collusion with her son and daughter has committed the said offence and they have concealed the dead body somewhere.

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 as it was instituted on 17.4.2025. Subsequent to the institution of FIR, the dead body of the deceased has been recovered at the pointing out of son of the applicant from the bank of a river, as such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the viscera report is still awaited. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is one of the main accused persons and she was hand in glove with her son and daughter and even she had instituted the missing report just to mislead the informant and other family members. There are burn injuries observed by the doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased person. As such, the applicant 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. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

10. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

11. 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 AIR 2012 SC 830; 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that FIR is delayed by about one month and the dead body of the deceased being recovered after excavation from the bank of a river at the pointing out of son of the applicant, 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.

14. Let the applicant- Chandrawati Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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.

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

16. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 238, 351(3), 352, 61(2), 80(2), 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Ahirauli Bazar, District- Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 18.2.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have beaten her up on 6.3.2025 at about 11:00 p.m. and the said fact was narrated by the deceased to her family members. When the informant called the son of the applicant on phone he did not let him talk to the deceased and even kept on dillydallying with the matter and he told the informant on 8.3.2025 at about 06:00 a.m. that the deceased was missing since night.

5. It is further alleged that the applicant is stated to have filed a missing report at the police station on 10.3.2025 just to conceal the fact of murder of the deceased person. The applicant in collusion with her son and daughter has committed the said offence and they have concealed the dead body somewhere.

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 as it was instituted on 17.4.2025. Subsequent to the institution of FIR, the dead body of the deceased has been recovered at the pointing out of son of the applicant from the bank of a river, as such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the viscera report is still awaited. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is one of the main accused persons and she was hand in glove with her son and daughter and even she had instituted the missing report just to mislead the informant and other family members. There are burn injuries observed by the doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased person. As such, the applicant 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. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

10. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

11. 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 AIR 2012 SC 830; 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that FIR is delayed by about one month and the dead body of the deceased being recovered after excavation from the bank of a river at the pointing out of son of the applicant, 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.

14. Let the applicant- Chandrawati Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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.

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

16. 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 :- 19.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad