Halim vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11440 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Halim vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181810
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31459 of 2025   
 
   Halim    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Kameshwar Singh, Sudhanshu Kumar Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 67
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.     

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 352, 123 of BNS, Police Station - Naraini, District - Banda, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and four other persons are stated to have forcibly administered certain poisonous material by mixing it in a cold-drink of informant's niece on 24.5.2025 at about 03:00 PM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has 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.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the cause of death of deceased could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved. As per viscera report, aluminium phosphide has been found in it. It is argued that the allegations are false as it is impossible for a person to administer aluminium phosphide by mixing it in a cold-drink.

7. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Jaipal vs. State of Harayana, (2002) AIR (SC) 3447, whereby it was opined that the said poison cannot be administered to any person forcibly. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as follows:- "14. Dr. Sharma admitted during his cross-examination that aluminium phosphide has a smell. If celphos table is kept open in a room it will fill the room with smell. It is this characteristic of celphos poison emitting pungent smell which renders it improbable to be administered deceitfully and that is why this poison is not generally used in cases of homicidal death. Celphos once administered or consumed spreads rapidly in the body and kidney, liver, spleen, heart and lungs are affected by the poison. The presence of such poison having been consumed would be revealed by pathological findings.

19. We may briefly sum up the opinion of the learned authors from their published paper. Phosphine gas (active ingredient of ALP) causes sudden cardiovascular collapse; most patients die of shock, cardiac arrhythmias, acidosis and Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Aluminium phosphide is available in the form of chalky white tablets. When these tablets are taken out of the sealed container, they come in contact with atmospheric moisture and the chemical reaction takes place liberating phosphene gas (PH3) which is the active ingredient of ALP. This gas is highly toxic and effectively kills all insects and thus preverves the stored grains. When these tablets are swallowed, the chemical reaction is accelerated by the presence of hydrochloric acid in the stomach and within minutes phosphine gas dissipates and spreads into the whole body. The gas is highly toxic and damages almost every organ but maximal damage is caused to heart and lungs. Sudden cardiovascular collapse is the hallmark of acute poisoning. Patients come with fast thready or impalpable arterial pulses, unrecordable or low blood pressure and icy cold skin-Somehow these patients remain conscious till the end and continue to pass urine despite unrecordable blood pressure. Vomiting is a prominent feature associated with epigastric burning sensation. The patients will be smelling foul (garlic like) from their breath and vomitus. Many of them will die within a few hours. Those who survive for some time will show elevated juglar venous. pressure, may develop tender hepatomegaly and still later Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), renal shut down and in a very few cases toxic hepatic jaundice. The active ingredient of ALP is phosphine gas which causes extensive tissue damage. A spot clinical diagnosis is possible in majority of cases of ALP poisoning. However, ALP on account of its very pungent smell (which can drive out all inmates from house if left open) can not be taken accidentally. 28. In the present case we do not find any abnormality in the conduct of the accused. He is an educated person, a teacher. If only he had administered any poison to the deceased he would not have gone to the private clinic and government hospital where poisoning as a cause of death would be immediately known or at least strongly suspected by the doctor attending on the victim. Rather the accused wanted to be in the company of the deceased and to have her treated. He attended on her at Navjeevan Hospital and took her to Civil Hospital."

8. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.5.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

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 AGA 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 AGA.

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 counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Jaipal (supra) and other judgements of Supreme Court, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Halim, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant 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 applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

October 13, 2025

Siddhant