HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31583 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinay Bhusan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Chilhiya, District - Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, over a land dispute, the applicants along with three other named co-accused persons, namely, Akhtar, Suraj and Hari, are stated to have committed the murder of informant's son on 22.07.2025 at about 05:00 PM and had got him suspended to a tree. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no eye-witness to the incident. Prior to the institution of instant FIR, an application was given by the informant to S.H.O. concerned whereby he has stated that the dead body of his son was found suspended to a tree in a village but he has not whispered a single word against any person whatsoever. The said application dated 23.07.2025 has been annexed as Annexure- 2 to the affidavit filed along with bail application and the same was found attested by the doctor conducting the postmortem. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 26.07.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramsubhag And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that prior to the death of the deceased person, he had called his wife and had told her that he had been taken captive by the applicant and other co-accused persons and had even beaten him up. The postmortem report indicates five injuries on the body of the deceased person in addition to the ligature mark. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that the applicant has strong motive to have committed the said offence as he was beaten up by the mother of deceased person about 15 days prior to the incident, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 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. 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 State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. 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 State Law Officer. 12. 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 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). 13. 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". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned BAIL No. 31583 of 2025 2 counsel for the parties, delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR and also considering the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court coupled by the fact that there is no ocular evidence to support the prosecution story and there being a contradictory application filed by the informant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicants- Ramsubhag and Shivalal @ Gulle, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicants will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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. October 7, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 31583 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad