State of U.P v. Party

3. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.408 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant and his father Munesh are stated to have entered into an altercation with the brother of the informant and they had committed his murder on 07.06.2024 at about 1:00 a.m. by a sharp edged weapon. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The son of the informant had left his house and his dead body was recovered in the morning from the village. The said information was given by the Gram Pradhan at the police station which was entered at G.D. No.13 2 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 on 07.06.2024 at about 4:25 a.m.

8. On the basis of said information, the inquest proceedings were undertaken and the inquest proceedings were started at 5:30 a.m. and were concluded at 7:00 a.m. The informant was panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings, but he did not whisper a single word against any person whatsoever at that stage and as an afterthought after legal consultation instituted the FIR at 2:45 p.m. implicating the applicant and his father in the said incident.

9. The post-mortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as it is stated therein that the applicant had assaulted the deceased person with a sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report indicates two incised wounds that were on forehead and left side of face and two lacerated wounds, muscle deep on the two lips of the deceased person.

10. It is true that the deceased person has sustained two incised wounds and two lacerated wounds, but the first informant does not seem to be an eye- witness as he is silent about the author of the said two lacerated wounds sustained by the deceased person.

11. The prosecution story took a complete u-turn subsequently as four witnesses of fact were examined by the prosecution who are stated to be the eye-witnesses, namely, Aditya, Naresh, Mukesh and Atar Singh and they have stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased person with the handle of the hand-pump, which is a blunt object, as such, cannot be termed to be a sharp edged weapon and the said two lacerated wounds are not the cause of death of the deceased person. At this point of time, the prosecution is not sure as to who was the author of the said injuries and how the deceased person sustained two incised wounds.

12. Even the CCTV footage indicates that the applicant was seen coming towards his house at 1:27 a.m. from the side of the place of occurrence and the applicant was seen leaving the house at 1:36 a.m. with three bags and ladies of the family.

13. Even the applicant is not visible carrying the handle of the hand-pump, which indicates that the said recovery foisted on the applicant by the 3 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 Investigating Officer is farce, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2024 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:

15. The said handle has sharp edges and as such the said incised wound may have been caused by the said handle of the hand-pump, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. 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”.

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

20. 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 4 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 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.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the said inconsistency in the post-mortem report to the ocular evidence coupled with the fact that the first informant was panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, 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.

22. Let the applicant- Sandeep Alias Ankur 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

23. 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.

24. 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 27, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)

3. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.408 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The applicant and his father Munesh are stated to have entered into an altercation with the brother of the informant and they had committed his murder on 07.06.2024 at about 1:00 a.m. by a sharp edged weapon. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The son of the informant had left his house and his dead body was recovered in the morning from the village. The said information was given by the Gram Pradhan at the police station which was entered at G.D. No.13 2 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 on 07.06.2024 at about 4:25 a.m.

8. On the basis of said information, the inquest proceedings were undertaken and the inquest proceedings were started at 5:30 a.m. and were concluded at 7:00 a.m. The informant was panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings, but he did not whisper a single word against any person whatsoever at that stage and as an afterthought after legal consultation instituted the FIR at 2:45 p.m. implicating the applicant and his father in the said incident.

9. The post-mortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as it is stated therein that the applicant had assaulted the deceased person with a sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report indicates two incised wounds that were on forehead and left side of face and two lacerated wounds, muscle deep on the two lips of the deceased person.

10. It is true that the deceased person has sustained two incised wounds and two lacerated wounds, but the first informant does not seem to be an eye- witness as he is silent about the author of the said two lacerated wounds sustained by the deceased person.

11. The prosecution story took a complete u-turn subsequently as four witnesses of fact were examined by the prosecution who are stated to be the eye-witnesses, namely, Aditya, Naresh, Mukesh and Atar Singh and they have stated that the applicant assaulted the deceased person with the handle of the hand-pump, which is a blunt object, as such, cannot be termed to be a sharp edged weapon and the said two lacerated wounds are not the cause of death of the deceased person. At this point of time, the prosecution is not sure as to who was the author of the said injuries and how the deceased person sustained two incised wounds.

12. Even the CCTV footage indicates that the applicant was seen coming towards his house at 1:27 a.m. from the side of the place of occurrence and the applicant was seen leaving the house at 1:36 a.m. with three bags and ladies of the family.

13. Even the applicant is not visible carrying the handle of the hand-pump, which indicates that the said recovery foisted on the applicant by the 3 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 Investigating Officer is farce, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.06.2024 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:

15. The said handle has sharp edges and as such the said incised wound may have been caused by the said handle of the hand-pump, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. 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”.

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

20. 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 4 BAIL No. 44862 of 2024 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.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the said inconsistency in the post-mortem report to the ocular evidence coupled with the fact that the first informant was panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, 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.

22. Let the applicant- Sandeep Alias Ankur 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

23. 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.

24. 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 27, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)