The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This is second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024.

3. This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Sheelu Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Session Trial No.516 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2023, under sections 306, 506 IPC, Police Station – Bharatkoop, District –Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that out of seven witnesses of fact, the prosecution has got only three witnesses examined, who have not spoken anything negative about the applicant. He further submits that the second bail application of the co-accused, namely, Raju Alias Deepak Kumar has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No.10106 of 2025, copy of which has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history except the present case and is languishing in jail since

06.08.2023. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that 2 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025 there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. 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 he or she 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

7. 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 fact that 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 for the State.

8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant is such that her mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail. 3 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 4 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. September 15, 2025 Jitendra/- (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This is second bail application. First bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2024.

3. This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Smt. Sheelu Devi with a prayer to release her on bail in Session Trial No.516 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2023, under sections 306, 506 IPC, Police Station – Bharatkoop, District –Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that out of seven witnesses of fact, the prosecution has got only three witnesses examined, who have not spoken anything negative about the applicant. He further submits that the second bail application of the co-accused, namely, Raju Alias Deepak Kumar has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No.10106 of 2025, copy of which has been passed on to the Court today, is kept on record. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history except the present case and is languishing in jail since

06.08.2023. In case, she is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that 2 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025 there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, she does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. 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 he or she 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

7. 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 fact that 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 for the State.

8. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant is such that her mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses. Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail. 3 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. 4 BAIL No. 29130 of 2025

12. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. September 15, 2025 Jitendra/- (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad