Allahabad High Court
Phool Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132547
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26916 of 2025
Applicant :- Phool Chandra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Ramnath
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Shanker Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, 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.113 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Roora, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about eight days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that an application was moved by the informant on 13.04.2025 itself at the police station and he had not levelled any allegations of demand of dowry or dowry death in it, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court in the judgment ofKahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.
8. 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.
9. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690.
10. 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".
11. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.
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. 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./State Law Officer.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased, 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.
15. Let the applicant-Phool Chandra, 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.
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 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
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
