Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134566 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27482 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohan Rathor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2024, under Sections 80, 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Auraiya, District- Auraiya, 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 16.4.2019, and subsequent to it, the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of Rs.10 lakh as dowry, thereby led her to death on 25.7.2024 at about 04:00 p.m. 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. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings which were complete on 26.7.2024 at 09:45 a.m. and he was arrayed as Panch witness no.1 in the said proceedings, but he had not whispered a single word against the applicant regarding demand of dowry at that stage. The FIR has been instituted subsequently as an afterthought. As such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera of the deceased was preserved and the viscera report does not reveal any poison in it. There are two minor injuries observed by the doctor conducting her autopsy but the said injuries are not sufficient to cause her death. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.3.2025 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. Learned A.G.A. has 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 delay in institution of FIR and the viscera report having not indicated presence of any poison in it and the informant being Panch witness no.1 in the inquest proceedings, 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- Mohan Rathor, 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 :- 8.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad