HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32286 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Harendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in S.C. No.1160 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.637 of 2022, under Sections 302, 328, 34, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The husband of the informant started quarreling with his wife over a trivial issue during farming and started hurling abuses at her. Hearing the said abuses, the applicant and three other co-accused persons started quarreling with the husband of the informant over the said abuses thinking that it was them to whom the deceased person was hurling abuses, but the matter was pacified. 5. Subsequently, the husband of the informant is stated to have gone to the applicants to get the matter settled and returned heavily drunk and started hurling abuses at her and after sometime his condition worsened in the house and subsequently expired. The matter continued from 8.11.2022 to 9.11.2022. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harendra Yadav, Prabhat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raj Kumar Singh Rambahadur @ Rajbahadur .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It was instituted after moving application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. 8. It is true that cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved and ethyl alcohol and organocholero insecticide were found in it as per the viscera report, which could be consumed anywhere. 9. There is no eye-witness of the incident, but subsequently, two more witnesses, namely, Ravi and Awadhesh, as an afterthought have been roped in by the prosecution who are stated to have seen the applicant and other accused persons having drinks with the deceased person. 10. The said allegations do not indicate that applicant got the said drinks mixed with some poisonous material. The allegations are vague. 11. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT: 12. The applicant and co-accused persons shared common intention as co- accused person Bhola was seen administering the said liquor to the deceased person and it is but evident that applicant and co-accused persons have committed the said offence. Subsequently, a fake case of accident has been converted to culpable homicide by the applicant and the son of the informant has been implicated in it. CONCLUSION: 13. 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. 14. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian BAIL No. 32286 of 2025 2 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. 15. 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". 16. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 17. 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 there being no ocular evidence, 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. 18. Let the applicant- Rambahadur @ Rajbahadur, 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. 19. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 20. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant BAIL No. 32286 of 2025 3 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32286 of 2025 4 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad