Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132757 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15917 of 2025 Applicant :- Rakesh Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh,Shad Azam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Ajay Kumar,G.A.,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Om Prakash,Raj Ashwani Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shad Azam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, 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. 46 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rampur, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 13.6.2022, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of money and car as dowry, thereby leading her to death on on 3.3.2025. 5. Learned Senior 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 and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned Senior Counsel has stated that the applicant as a bona fide act had informed the in-laws and they had reached the place of occurrence. The informant is Panch witness no.1 to the inquest proceedings and other family members were also present there. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that the inquest proceedings had culminated at 23:15 p.m. and the FIR is stated to have been instituted at 23:09 p.m. the same night. The informant cannot be present at two places as the distance between the place of occurrence and police station is six kilometers, as such, it is a clear cut case of ante-time proceedings. The applicant has been implicated in this case as an afterthought after legal consultation and deliberations. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.3.2025 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. Per contra 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. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 11. 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”. 12. 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. 13. Learned AGA 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 AGA. 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 fact that the proceedings are ante-time, 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. 16. Let the applicant- Rakesh Pal, 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. 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. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad