Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129337 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39641 of 2024 Applicant :- Nandan Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, 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.58 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Syed Raza, District Chandauli, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. PW-1 and PW-2 has been examined during trial and they have supported the prosecution story in examination-in-chief, but have resiled from their earlier statements during cross-examination the same day. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. 7. 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. 8. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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". 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the prosecution story during trial, 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. 10. Let the applicant- Nandan Kumar, 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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 1.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad