Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137661 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18701 of 2025 Applicant :- Kanchan Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Bahadur Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranjit Singh, holding brief of Sri Vijay Bahadur, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0121 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the paramour of the deceased person thereby she used to blackmail him and extract money from him for substantial period of time and had called him to a hotel at Hari Parvat on 08.04.2025 and had demanded Rs. one lac from him thereby set the husband of the informant afire, who was admitted in the hospital and an FIR was instituted on 09.04.2025 at 5:27 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations made in the FIR are that the applicant had set the deceased afire. The said allegations are false. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a lady and was physically incapable to commit the said offence. It is next stated that there is a dying declaration of the deceased person which states that it was the applicant who had called the deceased person to Oyo room and had forced him to marry her but he could not marry her as he was earlier married person and the marriage of the applicant was agreed to be solemnized elsewhere, as such under the duress of the applicant, he had set himself afire in an attempt to commit suicide. 7. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that in the dying declaration, the deceased has also alleged that the applicant used to force her into corporeal relationship by asking him to take some medicines, as such dying declaration does not indicate towards abetment to commit suicide. 8. It is further stated that the prosecution story stands falsified as the FIR shows that the applicant had set him afire while the dying declaration indicates that the deceased set himself afire. There are no ingredients of Section 109 of BNS in the said incident as no overt act has been assigned to the applicant to abet the deceased to commit suicide, as such applicant is entitled for bail. 9. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 10. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have stated that there is a statement of the owner of the hotel and there is another eye witness who has stated that the applicant was present with the deceased person at the time of offence. 11. 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. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. 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 AGA. 13. The said viewpoint was shared in AIR 1924 Cal 476 Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor, 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. 14. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor v. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar v. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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) 17. 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". 18. 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. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in institution of the FIR and taking into consideration the dying declaration which does not indicate that the applicant had abetted the deceased person to commit suicide, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Kanchan Sharma, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 22. 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 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad