State of U.P v. Counsel for

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the 2. applicant and Sri Parvez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2024, under 3. Section 103(1) of B.N.S., Police Station - Salempur, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The informant instituted the FIR on 22.07.2024 at 07:37 AM stating that he was informed by Ex-Pradhan Khurseed Ahmad that his son Md. Akib has been put to death by stabbing with knife in his abdomen and neck at primary school to chak road near the agricultural field of one Shamshad. 2 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due 5. to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two hours and there is no explanation

6. of the said delay caused.

7. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased were carried 8. out on 22.07.2024 and the first informant was present at that time but he did not care to nominate any accused person at that stage. The postmortem examination report indicated six lacerated

9. wounds and seven incised wounds on the body of the deceased person. The informant has nominated the applicant for the first time in his 10. statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS whereby he has stated that his son was talking with someone and had informed him that the applicant had called him at 11:00 AM and assured that he shall return soon.

11. The call details of the mobile of the deceased indicated that he had talked to the applicant on 21.7.2024 at 22:22:22 hours for 77 seconds and thereupon the applicant called on his mobile at 23:08:31 hours for a second and then again, the deceased called at the mobile of the applicant on 23:11:15 hours and the said conversation continued for 81 seconds and again, the applicant called at the mobile of the deceased person at 23:20:23 hours and the said call was for the duration of 21 seconds.

12. The said call details indicate that the applicant and the deceased person were frequently talking with each other upto 11:20:23 hours which was more than 20 minutes after the said incident of deceased leaving his house. The said statement that the deceased has left his house at 11:00 PM after talking to the applicant stands falsified from the fact that he was having conversations with the applicant till 11:20 PM, as such, the prosecution allegation that the deceased person has been put to death by the applicant stands falsified. There is no voice test report to indicate that vide the said 13. conversations, the applicant had called the deceased person from his house and thereupon committed the said murder. The CDRs also indicate that the applicant was having regular 14. conversations with the other co-accused persons but the said conversations do not fall within the category of any offence. 3 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025

15. There is a statement of uncle of the deceased Abdul Hamid and another witness Shehbaz Alam, who is also stated to be the relative of the deceased. The said two witnesses are stated to have seen the deceased going with Heeba, sister of the accused and have allayed suspicion that the applicant might have committed the said murder.

16. There is no concrete motive of the applicant to commit the said offence except the proximity of the deceased to his sister which is not sufficient to commit the said offence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024, having no 17. criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:

18. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by stating that there is an ample evidence against the applicant and he carried a motive to commit the said offence as the deceased person was having close relations with the applicant’s sister and he caused his murder as he did not like the said proximity of his sister with the deceased person.

19. The call details match with the statement of the informant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE: The bail application has been vehemently opposed on similar

20. lines as stated by learned counsel for the informant. CONCLUSION:

21. 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.

22. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

23. 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 4 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025 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". Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances

24. which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the 25. 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.

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and also considering the fact that the deceased person had made conversations with the applicant even after leaving his house at 11 PM up to 23:20:23 hours which is more than 20 minutes after leaving his house, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anas, who is involved in aforementioned case 27. 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

28. ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the 29. applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Krishan Pahal,J.) October 17, 2025 Siddhant SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the 2. applicant and Sri Parvez Iqbal Ansari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2024, under 3. Section 103(1) of B.N.S., Police Station - Salempur, District - Deoria, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The informant instituted the FIR on 22.07.2024 at 07:37 AM stating that he was informed by Ex-Pradhan Khurseed Ahmad that his son Md. Akib has been put to death by stabbing with knife in his abdomen and neck at primary school to chak road near the agricultural field of one Shamshad. 2 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due 5. to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two hours and there is no explanation

6. of the said delay caused.

7. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased were carried 8. out on 22.07.2024 and the first informant was present at that time but he did not care to nominate any accused person at that stage. The postmortem examination report indicated six lacerated

9. wounds and seven incised wounds on the body of the deceased person. The informant has nominated the applicant for the first time in his 10. statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS whereby he has stated that his son was talking with someone and had informed him that the applicant had called him at 11:00 AM and assured that he shall return soon.

11. The call details of the mobile of the deceased indicated that he had talked to the applicant on 21.7.2024 at 22:22:22 hours for 77 seconds and thereupon the applicant called on his mobile at 23:08:31 hours for a second and then again, the deceased called at the mobile of the applicant on 23:11:15 hours and the said conversation continued for 81 seconds and again, the applicant called at the mobile of the deceased person at 23:20:23 hours and the said call was for the duration of 21 seconds.

12. The said call details indicate that the applicant and the deceased person were frequently talking with each other upto 11:20:23 hours which was more than 20 minutes after the said incident of deceased leaving his house. The said statement that the deceased has left his house at 11:00 PM after talking to the applicant stands falsified from the fact that he was having conversations with the applicant till 11:20 PM, as such, the prosecution allegation that the deceased person has been put to death by the applicant stands falsified. There is no voice test report to indicate that vide the said 13. conversations, the applicant had called the deceased person from his house and thereupon committed the said murder. The CDRs also indicate that the applicant was having regular 14. conversations with the other co-accused persons but the said conversations do not fall within the category of any offence. 3 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025

15. There is a statement of uncle of the deceased Abdul Hamid and another witness Shehbaz Alam, who is also stated to be the relative of the deceased. The said two witnesses are stated to have seen the deceased going with Heeba, sister of the accused and have allayed suspicion that the applicant might have committed the said murder.

16. There is no concrete motive of the applicant to commit the said offence except the proximity of the deceased to his sister which is not sufficient to commit the said offence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024, having no 17. criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT:

18. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by stating that there is an ample evidence against the applicant and he carried a motive to commit the said offence as the deceased person was having close relations with the applicant’s sister and he caused his murder as he did not like the said proximity of his sister with the deceased person.

19. The call details match with the statement of the informant. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE: The bail application has been vehemently opposed on similar

20. lines as stated by learned counsel for the informant. CONCLUSION:

21. 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.

22. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

23. 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 4 BAIL No. - 31774 of 2025 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". Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances

24. which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the 25. 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.

26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and also considering the fact that the deceased person had made conversations with the applicant even after leaving his house at 11 PM up to 23:20:23 hours which is more than 20 minutes after leaving his house, prima facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Anas, who is involved in aforementioned case 27. 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

28. ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the 29. applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. (Krishan Pahal,J.) October 17, 2025 Siddhant SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad