Allahabad High Court
Anish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141107
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26563 of 2025
Applicant :- Anish
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Bhaju Ram Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.198 of 2024, under Sections 64(2)(m) B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Puranderpur, District Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been granted bail earlier and subsequent to it final report/charge-sheet has been submitted and Sections 64(2)(m) B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act have been added.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 240 and Manoj Suresh Jadhav & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3428, wherein the applicant therein was enlarged on anticipatory bail in the added sections U/S 438 Cr.P.C. after being enlarged on regular bail U/S 439 Cr.P.C. Although the instant case is of regular bail, but it can be considered to be on better footing.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
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. 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 inSatenderKumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
9. 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 learnedA.G.A./State Law Officer.
10.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).
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.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 applicant was earlier enlarged on bail in the instant case and subsequent to it Sections 64(2)(m) B.N.S. and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act have been added, 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.
13. Let the applicant- Anish, 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.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
15. 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 :- 19.8.2025
Karan
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
