Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136907 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22758 of 2024 Applicant :- Akash Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Giri,Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Mayank Misra,Nitesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kushagra Srivastava,Shahrukh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Himanshu Giri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shahrukh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 685 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 120-B & 506 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Hapur Nagar, District - Hapur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The deceased has expired within the precincts of her maternal home, as such, the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the suicide note of the deceased person indicates that she has committed suicide as the applicant was having illicit relationship with some other lady. It is also mentioned therein that the applicant had demanded dowry from her. It is argued that it cannot be the reason for committing suicide as either of the two reasons cannot lead to an inference that there was an overt act committed by the applicant to abet the deceased to commit suicide. 6. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.09.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a suicide note whereby the complicity of the applicant is established, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 8. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 06.08.2025. As per the said report, four witnesses have been examined and the examination-in-chief of P.W. 4 is going on. 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. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 10. 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 State Law Officer. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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) 15. 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". 16. 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. 17. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of her maternal home and her suicide note does not reflect any overt act to the applicant of having abetted her to commit suicide, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Akash Kashyap, 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 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. 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:- 12.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad