HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30564 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2025, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Devband, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant had married the daughter of the informant out of love and subsequently he started ill-treating her, as such, caused her death by administering some poisonous material to her in the night of 30.03.2025. When the informant reached there, he found his daughter dead in the hospital, as such, the inquest proceedings and the post- mortem examination of the deceased was conducted. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The informant was panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings and did not whisper a single word against the applicant. The instant FIR has been instituted after legal consultation as an afterthought. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Robin @ Akash .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera report is awaited. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the informant and other family members were present at the time of cremation of the deceased person. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2025 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. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 12. 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”. BAIL No. 30564 of 2025 2 13. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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 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. 15. 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 the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Robin @ Akash, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 18. 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 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 30564 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad