Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131067

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25771 of 2025

Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh,Mohd. Irfan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 115(2), 352 of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Bhot, District - Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the sister of the informant as per Hindu Rites on 20.04.2024. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of a bullet motorcycle and Rs. two lakhs as dowry thereby leading her to death on 01.05.2025 at about 10:30 AM.

¶10

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 about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that all the family members of the deceased person were present at the time of inquest proceedings and the informant himself is the panch witness no. 4 in it. The said proceedings were completed on 01.05.2025 itself and the FIR was instituted the next day, as such, the doctrine of first opportunity was not followed.

¶12

Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.05.2025, 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.

¶13

Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant and other family members had run away from the place of occurrence, as such, their conduct speak volume in the matter, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶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 reiterated 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 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 ".

¶17

Learned State Law Officer 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

¶19

have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the informant is one of the panch witness in the inquest proceedings and he has not whispered a single word against the applicant at that time coupled by the fact that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Vinod , 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.

¶22

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

iii) The applicant will 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:- 5.8.2025 Siddhant

¶27

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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