In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

2. Heard Sri Akhtar Ali, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajaj Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 238, 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Pallav Puram, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the informant's son was missing since

28.12.2024 of about 07:00 PM and the FIR was instituted the same night at about 11:44 PM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the dead body of the deceased person was recovered on 07.01.2025 which is about 10 days after the incident. Subsequent to it, two eye-witnesses have been roped in, namely, Bhupendari and her husband Maan Singh, who have stated that they had seen the applicant while slapping Lucky and then taken him away to his house on the fateful evening of 28.12.2024. It is argued that the said statements have been recorded after legal consultations and that too after a delay of 13 days from the date of incident and about 3 days after the recovery of the dead body. The said silence of all the eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication as the area wherein the applicant and the deceased person live belong to a weaker sections of the society.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the postmortem report of the 2 BAIL No. 33928 of 2025 deceased person was conducted on 07.01.2025 and the time of death has been found to be 2 to 4 days from the date of autopsy which does not match with the time of occurrence, as such, the time difference between the autopsy and the missing of deceased person is about ten days. The prosecution story stands falsified on this count also.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of eleven cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025, 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 but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. 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.

11. 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. 3 BAIL No. 33928 of 2025

12. 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).

13. 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".

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the inconsistencies in the postmortem report of the deceased person to the FIR, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Ankit Jain, who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

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

17. 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 28, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Akhtar Ali, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajaj Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 305 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 238, 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Pallav Puram, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the informant's son was missing since

28.12.2024 of about 07:00 PM and the FIR was instituted the same night at about 11:44 PM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the dead body of the deceased person was recovered on 07.01.2025 which is about 10 days after the incident. Subsequent to it, two eye-witnesses have been roped in, namely, Bhupendari and her husband Maan Singh, who have stated that they had seen the applicant while slapping Lucky and then taken him away to his house on the fateful evening of 28.12.2024. It is argued that the said statements have been recorded after legal consultations and that too after a delay of 13 days from the date of incident and about 3 days after the recovery of the dead body. The said silence of all the eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication as the area wherein the applicant and the deceased person live belong to a weaker sections of the society.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the postmortem report of the 2 BAIL No. 33928 of 2025 deceased person was conducted on 07.01.2025 and the time of death has been found to be 2 to 4 days from the date of autopsy which does not match with the time of occurrence, as such, the time difference between the autopsy and the missing of deceased person is about ten days. The prosecution story stands falsified on this count also.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of eleven cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025, 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 but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. 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.

11. 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. 3 BAIL No. 33928 of 2025

12. 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).

13. 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".

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the inconsistencies in the postmortem report of the deceased person to the FIR, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Ankit Jain, who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

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

17. 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 28, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)