HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32877 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajeev Sawhney, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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.94 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Kiratpur, District- Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Umar are stated to have taken away the son of the informant on their respective motorcycles on 28.4.2025 at about 04:00 p.m., whereby dead body of son of the informant was recovered from an agricultural field and the FIR was instituted on 29.4.2025 in the mid night at 00:10 hours. 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 more than eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant was very much present at the time of inquest proceedings which were complete in the night of 28.4.2025 and the informant has been arrayed as Panch witness no.1 it it. The informant has not whispered a single word against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Sawhney Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajiv Sisodia Meharban .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant at that stage, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a false recovery of mobile, motorcycle and clothes of the deceased person has been foisted on the applicant as the informant suspected that applicant had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased person. There is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant except one subsequent case of Arms Act foisted on him after arrest in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.4.2025 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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". 12. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. 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 coupled with the fact that BAIL No. 32877 of 2025 2 informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and had not whispered a single word against the applicant at that stage, 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. 14. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Meharban, 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. 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 15, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32877 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad