Vaibhav Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134011

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23893 of 2025

Applicant :- Vaibhav Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Dwivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhinav Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 310 of 2025, under Sections 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Chhibramau, DistrictKannauj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the daughter of the informant was admitted in a hospital for treatment of certain illness where the victim was given some injection by the doctors and subsequently her health deteriorated leading to her death.

¶10

Learned Senior 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. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that applicant was prosecuted for the offence committed under Section 106(1) BNS and he was granted bail by the CJM concerned vide order dated 21.05.2025. The said order has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that subsequently serious charges have been levelled against the applicant as the applicant happens to be the owner of the said Hospital. It is argued that the applicant in complicity with the other co-accused person administered some injection to the victim leading to her death, however, the said allegations are per se false. There is no act of abetment committed by the applicant.

¶12

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is languishing in jail since 28.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶16

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” .

¶17

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶18

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 AGA.

¶19

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.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶21

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that there is no direct evidence that the applicant in collusion the other co-accused person had administered the said injection to the victim 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 .

¶22

Let the applicant- Vaibhav Dubey , 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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.8.2025

¶27

Karan

¶28

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶29

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

Vaibhav Dubey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Dubey 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