HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28518 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Dwivedi, 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.240 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Cantt., District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Ballu are stated to have taken the son of the informant alongwith them on 25.4.2025 at about 06:00 p.m., whereby his dead body was recovered on 26.4.2025 at about 07:00 a.m. from the agricultural field. As such, FIR was instituted by the informant the same evening at 10:47 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 and even it is delayed by about fifteen hours from the time of recovery of dead body and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case which stands fortified from the fact that an information at the police station was given by the same Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Tanveer .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) informant at about 10:44 a.m. and he did not whisper a single word against the applicant in it. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings also and did not care to name the applicant to be one of the perpetrators of the crime. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that even the said information at the police station regarding unnatural death was given by the informant after a delay of three and a half hours after the recovery of dead body. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.5.2025 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 another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 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. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into BAIL No. 28518 of 2025 2 consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that the said information at the police station did not mention the name of the applicant in it, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Tanveer, 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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. October 8, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28518 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad