The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. And Another

: Amit, Kamla Srivastava : Amit Kumar, G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.67 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 137(2), 103(1), 238, 140(2) B.N.S., 2023 and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Shiwala Kala, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted against unknown persons.

5. Five accused persons were arrested by the police and subsequently at their joint pointing out, the said dead body is stated to have been recovered whereby the applicant and other persons were found preparing to dispose off the dead body by putting him in a pit. Even a pit was found nearby. The allegations are per se false.

6. The place of recovery of the dead body is an open place.

7. Even the inquest report indicates that maggots were present on the dead body, which indicates that the offence was committed much before the recovery of dead body and there was no occasion for the applicant to reach 2 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 there and make an attempt to dispose off the body by putting it in a pit, as such, the complete proceedings are false. Even the inquest report does not mention the presence of applicant at the place of occurrence.

8. The inquest proceedings were started on 08.05.2025 at about 5:30 p.m. and were concluded at 10:00 p.m. and there is no mentioning of time so as when the applicant was taken into custody, although the applicant was shown to be arrested at 9:00 p.m. which was during the inquest proceedings.

9. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

10. The co-accused person Nakul was using the Realme mobile of his sister from which the said fake Instagram I.D. was created and all the accused persons were arrested from one and the same place, which indicates the complicity of the applicant.

11. The said Instagram I.D. was used for demanding the ransom money.

12. A case under Arms Act has also been instituted against the applicant at the time of arrest of the applicant. CONCLUSION:

13. 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 for bail is made out.

14. 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.

15. 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 3 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

17. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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 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.

19. 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 no time of taking into custody of the applicant is mentioned in the arrest memo coupled with the fact that the place of recovery is an open place from an agricultural field and also the fact that the mobile which is stated to have been destroyed belong to the sister of the co- accused person Nakul, 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.

20. Let the applicant- Aniket involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. 4 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. 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. October 7, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Amit, Kamla Srivastava : Amit Kumar, G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.67 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 137(2), 103(1), 238, 140(2) B.N.S., 2023 and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Shiwala Kala, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted against unknown persons.

5. Five accused persons were arrested by the police and subsequently at their joint pointing out, the said dead body is stated to have been recovered whereby the applicant and other persons were found preparing to dispose off the dead body by putting him in a pit. Even a pit was found nearby. The allegations are per se false.

6. The place of recovery of the dead body is an open place.

7. Even the inquest report indicates that maggots were present on the dead body, which indicates that the offence was committed much before the recovery of dead body and there was no occasion for the applicant to reach 2 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 there and make an attempt to dispose off the body by putting it in a pit, as such, the complete proceedings are false. Even the inquest report does not mention the presence of applicant at the place of occurrence.

8. The inquest proceedings were started on 08.05.2025 at about 5:30 p.m. and were concluded at 10:00 p.m. and there is no mentioning of time so as when the applicant was taken into custody, although the applicant was shown to be arrested at 9:00 p.m. which was during the inquest proceedings.

9. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

10. The co-accused person Nakul was using the Realme mobile of his sister from which the said fake Instagram I.D. was created and all the accused persons were arrested from one and the same place, which indicates the complicity of the applicant.

11. The said Instagram I.D. was used for demanding the ransom money.

12. A case under Arms Act has also been instituted against the applicant at the time of arrest of the applicant. CONCLUSION:

13. 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 for bail is made out.

14. 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.

15. 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 3 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

17. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. 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 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.

19. 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 no time of taking into custody of the applicant is mentioned in the arrest memo coupled with the fact that the place of recovery is an open place from an agricultural field and also the fact that the mobile which is stated to have been destroyed belong to the sister of the co- accused person Nakul, 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.

20. Let the applicant- Aniket involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. 4 BAIL No. 31615 of 2025 (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. 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. October 7, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad