Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133509 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26037 of 2025 Applicant :- Aryan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harishchandra Yadav,Mudit Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mudit Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 07 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu rites on 12.06.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and thereby led her to death on 31.12.2022. 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 as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that father-in-law of the deceased person had expired, as such his tehrvi was fixed for 01.01.2023 and in the intervening night what transpired is best known to the deceased as she has committed suicide and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next stated that the informant was present at the time of the said tehravi and on the next day, inquest proceedings of the deceased person were undertaken on 02.01.2023. The informant is arrayed as panch witness no.1 in the said inquest proceedings which was complete on 02.01.2023 at about 1:30 p.m. There was no whisper of a single word of demand of dowry at the stage of inquest proceedings or at the time of death of the deceased person. 8. Learned counsel has further stated that only witness of fact has been examined and the trial is moving at snail's pace and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also 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. 11. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 12. 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". 13. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statute like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 14. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 15. 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 State Law Officer. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Aryan, 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 the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 19. 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 :- 7.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad