Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135306 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26253 of 2024 Applicant :- Mahesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalpana Singh,Vijay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Yadav,Rishabh Raj Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Smt. Kalpana Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2024, under Sections 323, 506, 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Jasrana, District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu Rites about one year before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 50,000/-, gold chain and a motorcycle as dowry thereby leading her to death on 23.03.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR, as such, it is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that it is true that the trial is moving on, although, at a snail's pace as only three witnesses have been examined to date. The cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that the informant has been examined as P.W. No. 1 and his statement has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the supplementary affidavit filed in court today. In the internal page no. 4, during cross-examination, the informant has admitted that he had instituted the FIR at about 10, 11 or 12 Noon on 24.03.2024. The said statement if considered on the lateral side i.e. 12 noon also falsifies the prosecution story as the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings and has been arrayed as Panch Witness No. 1 in it. The inquest proceedings were completed at 01:10 PM and subsequent to it, the FIR has been instituted the same day at 01:24 PM. It is argued that the informant could not be present at two places at a go as the distance between the place of occurrence to that of the police station is 12 km. 8. Learned counsel has next submitted that there was a vast age difference between the applicant and the deceased person as she was about 30 years old and the applicant is 55 years old, as such, she was not satisfied with the said marriage and has committed suicide. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.04.2024, 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. 9. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is going on as three witnesses have already been examined, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 10. 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. 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 AGA. 12. 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. 13. 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. 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 and also considering the said anomally in the statement of the informant P.W.-1 coupled by the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and also taking into consideration the timing of institution of FIR and the preparation of inquest report, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant- Mahesh Chandra, 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. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 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:- 11.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad