State of U.P. vs Party(s)
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
2. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 238 of BNS, Police Station - Gujaini, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations made in the FIR, it was learnt by the informant that the applicant along with other co-accused persons had got the victim intoxicated on 17.03.2025 and committed his murder in the night. The dead body was recovered on 19.03.2025.
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 three days from the initial date of offence and about one day from the date of recovery of dead body and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel has also stated that the inquest report was prepared much before the institution of FIR but there is no whisper of a single word against the applicant at that stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The only evidence that has come up subsequently is the recovery of a CCTV footage whereby three persons are stated to have been observed by the Investigating Officer carrying the dead body but he has not mentioned it in 2 BAIL No. 32636 of 2025 the case diary as to who identified the said persons and whose dead body, they were carrying.
7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025, 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 has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the Investigating Officer has sent the said CCTV footage for forensic analysis but he could not dispute the fact that there is no mentioning of the person who had identified the applicant and the dead body of the deceased person in the said CCTV footage. Learned AGA has also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
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 AGA 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 AGA.
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.
2. Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 238 of BNS, Police Station - Gujaini, District - Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations made in the FIR, it was learnt by the informant that the applicant along with other co-accused persons had got the victim intoxicated on 17.03.2025 and committed his murder in the night. The dead body was recovered on 19.03.2025.
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 three days from the initial date of offence and about one day from the date of recovery of dead body and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
6. Learned counsel has also stated that the inquest report was prepared much before the institution of FIR but there is no whisper of a single word against the applicant at that stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The only evidence that has come up subsequently is the recovery of a CCTV footage whereby three persons are stated to have been observed by the Investigating Officer carrying the dead body but he has not mentioned it in 2 BAIL No. 32636 of 2025 the case diary as to who identified the said persons and whose dead body, they were carrying.
7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025, 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 has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the Investigating Officer has sent the said CCTV footage for forensic analysis but he could not dispute the fact that there is no mentioning of the person who had identified the applicant and the dead body of the deceased person in the said CCTV footage. Learned AGA has also not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
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 AGA 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 AGA.
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.