Naarendra Diwakar Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137906

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19767 of 2025

Applicant :- Naarendra Diwakar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavanesh Mishra,Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Luvkush Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pavanesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Sing, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 108 B.N.S., Police Station- Maharajpur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have teased and tormented the minor daughter of the informant aged about 15 years for about six months and forced the victim to commit suicide whereby she hung herself on 16.03.2025 at about 09:00 AM and she was retrived from the ceiling of the house and taken to hospital whereby she succumbed to the said injury sustained on 18.03.2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The said FIR has been lodged after two days of the death of the deceased. There are vague allegations against the applicant. It is also argued that no overt act has been assigned to the applicant of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

¶11

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is

¶12

languishing in jail since 22.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

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 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. , 2022 (10) SCC 51 .

¶15

9. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶16

10. 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.

¶17

11. The said viewpoint was shared in AIR 1924 Cal 476 Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character.

¶18

12. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor v. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception.

¶19

13. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an

¶20

accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail.

¶21

14. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: 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 )

¶22

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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” .

¶23

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.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence

¶25

on record, and taking into consideration the delay in lodging of the FIR 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 .

¶26

Let the applicant- Naarendra Diwakar , 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.

¶27

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Karan

¶31

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naarendra Diwakar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naarendra Diwakar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases