HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30274 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shitlesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) & 61(2) of BNS, Police Station - Karimuddinpur, District - Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial. 4. The FIR was instituted by the informant on 21.04.2025 that his brother was put to death in the night of 21.04.2025 by the applicant along with her three sisters and other family members. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is 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 FIR was instituted on the basis of suspicion only. The allegations are per se false. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR itself is delayed as it was instituted on 22.04.2025 at about 09:30 AM. The informant has changed the story in his statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS whereby he has stated that it was one Raja Dasrath, who committed the said offence and the applicant assisted him. It is true that a video has been garnered by the Investigating Officer in which the applicant and other co-accused persons Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shitlesh Pandey, Shivendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Reena Kharwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) were found present at the place of occurrence but the said video does not indicate any overt act being assigned to the applicant, as such, she is entitled for bail. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025, having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 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. 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. 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. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 10. It is a 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. 11. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; Inhuman BAIL No. 30274 of 2025 2 Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re. (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695). 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that it was instituted on the basis of suspicion only coupled by the fact that the informant has changed his version in his statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Reena Kharwar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will 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 9, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 30274 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad