HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30658 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Bewar, District- Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the son of the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant and had committed rape with her and thereupon committed her murder, whereby the applicant is stated to have called the informant and kept on fleecing and fooling him and after sometime got the said dead body recovered suspended to a tree. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is true that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than one and a half day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused either. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash Pandey, Rochak Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Dubey, G.A. Jitendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) proceedings of the deceased person were conducted by the police and the informant was present at that time, but he did not whisper a single word against that applicant rather he has stated that he found the dead body of his daughter suspended to a tree. Had the prosecution story, as narrated, been taken at face value, the same would have come up at the stage of recording of inquest proceedings itself. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 24.9.2025, the statements of two witnesses of fact, who are the informant and one eye-witness, have been recorded as PW-1 and PW-2. The cross-examination of PW-3 is going on. As such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future as it is moving at a snail's pace. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 BAIL No. 30658 of 2025 2 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". 13. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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 fact that informant has not allayed any allegation against the applicant at the time of 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. 15. Let the applicant- Jitendra, 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall 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 27, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 30658 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad