HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34037 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.321 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 238 B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the person who had instructed his wife to not in contact with her maternal family, as such, had taken her on his motorcycle on 03.10.2024 and had committed her murder as the informant got the said information from social media. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant has solely been made an accused on the basis of him being the husband of the deceased person. It was but natural for him to take his wife on a motorcycle. It is true that the applicant is the owner of the said motorcycle, but there is no evidence that the applicant was present at the place of recovery of dead body of the deceased person. The place of recovery of dead body was far Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak, G.A., Sushil Kumar Pandey Naresh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) away from the place of residence of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the only evidence garnered by the investigating officer is that applicant was present in the vicinity of the place of recovery of dead body for about thirty minutes, but the said allegations are per se false. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was present at the place of occurrence for about thirty minutes and the cause of death was found to be ante-mortem injuries as haematoma was found on the parietal region of the deceased person. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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”. 11. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. BAIL No. 34037 of 2025 2 12. 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. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Naresh, 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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 14, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 34037 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad