Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134916 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27501 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bachan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ram Bachan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.76 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Madhuban, District Mau, 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 08.12.2022. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereby led her to death on 05.03.2025 at about 6:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante- mortem hanging. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant and his family members were present all through during treatment of the deceased person, at the stage of inquest proceedings, post-mortem and her cremation. The presence of the informant stands fortified from the inquest report which was complete on 06.03.2025 itself and the informant and his son have been arrayed as panch witness nos.3 and 5 respectively in the said inquest proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no specific demand of dowry in the FIR. There are vague allegations, as such, the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S. are not fulfilled. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2025 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 reiterated 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 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". 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 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 fact that the informant and his son were present at the time of 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- Pradeep Verma, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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 :- 11.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad