Allahabad High Court
Alauddin And Another vs State Of U.P. on 7 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133529
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25248 of 2025
Applicant :- Alauddin And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3.Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased person and have been falsely implicated in the present case.The statement of PW-1 has been recorded and he has not supported the prosecution story the same day during cross-examination.PW-2 has been examined during trial and she has completely resiled from her earlier statement and has been cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring her hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicants in the instant case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the criminal history of four cases assigned to applicant no.1 stands explained.There is no criminal history of applicant no.2.The applicants are languishing in jail since 10.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 respectively and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6.LearnedState Law Officerhas vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants.
7.The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
8. 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.
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.
10. 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.
11. 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".
12. 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.
13. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
14. 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.
15. 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 has not supported the prosecution story during cross-examination and PW-2 has been declared hostile 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.
16. Let the applicants-Alauddin and Shabnam, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on 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 shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
18. 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.
Order Date :- 7.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
