Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138524 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9279 of 2024 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Nikhil Shukla,Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Saifai, District- Etawah, during the pendency of trial. 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 three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant and his father were present at the time of inquest proceedings and they were arrayed as Panch witness no.2 and 1, respectively, but they had not whispered a single word against the applicant regarding demand of dowry at that stage. The FIR has been instituted after two days of the inquest proceedings as an afterthought that too after legal consultation. As such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The trial is moving at a snail's pace as only three witnesses have been examined to date. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.12.2023, as such, he is incarcerated for more than one and half years. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have 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. 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. 10. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. It is a 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. 12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476, whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character. 13. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor Vs. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor, this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception. 14. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail. 15. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695). 16. 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". 17. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted. 18. 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 by the fact that informant was present at the time inquest proceedings which were undertaken well before the institution of FIR, 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. 19. Let the applicant- Vipin Kumar, 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. 20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 21. 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. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad