Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Pranav Tiwary, Sri Abhisht Jaiswal, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

As per prosecution story, the husband of the deceased person Rajesh Kumar is stated to have committed the murder of his wife in collusion with the applicant and other co-accused persons on 09.03.2025 at about 2:12 a.m.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR itself indicates that the husband had put the deceased to death by causing firearm injuries to her. There is no other injury sustained by the deceased person on her body except the said two firearm injuries.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has simply been made an accused on the basis of his relationship with the deceased person as he is the younger brother of the husband of deceased

¶14

BAIL No. 26997 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

person. He has not been assigned the role of carrying any weapon whatsoever. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 .

¶20

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” .

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL No. 26997 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the injury sustained by the deceased person and the fact that the applicant has not been assigned the role of carrying any weapon whatsoever, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶27

Let the applicant- Rakesh Kumar , 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.

¶28

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶34

October 9, 2025

¶35

(Ravi Kant)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar 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