Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133701 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27252 of 2025 Applicant :- Subhash Chandra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shravan Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicants are father-in-law and mother-in- law respectively of the deceased person. The FIR is delayed by two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. Even the allegations of demand of dowry have not been allayed in the FIR against the applicants. The said allegations have been subsequently added in the supplementary statement of the informant recorded under section 180 BNSS as an afterthought. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the deceased had committed suicide by throwing herself in front of a running train. The cause of death has been found to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. It is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 07.07.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599, whereby it has been categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant. 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 there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, I find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicants - Subhash Chandra and Nanki Devi @ Deomati, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants 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 applicants 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