Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132413 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30730 of 2024 Applicant :- Abid Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tripathi,Ajeet Kumar Pandey,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 2785 of 2017, under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Shahibabad, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48557 of 2018. 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 allegations are per se false. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that PW-1 has been examined in the court during trial and he has completely resiled from his earlier statement and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring him hostile. Subsequent to it, statement of PW-2 has been recorded and he has also not supported the prosecution story. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that the main ground of bail of the applicant is the period of incarceration as he is in jail since 27.12.2017 and he has been incarcerated for more than seven and half years. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant 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 Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. It emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial. 11. While granting bail to ex-West Bengal Minister in Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that "a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention." "The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial," observed the bench. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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". 16. 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. 17. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 18. 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. 19. This Court had called for status of trial on 08.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 28.07.2025 indicates that only two witness have been examined to date. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and taking into account the fact that only two witnesses have been examined to date, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 21. Let the applicant- Abid Khan, 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. 22. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 23. 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 :- 6.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad