Allowed

Rajan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025BAIL/28293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by husband accused under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act after his wife's death by hanging. Court noted delayed FIR, family presence at inquest and no criminal history, and allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajan to be released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of no evidence tampering, no intimidating witnesses, and appearing at trial.

Rajan vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140882

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28293 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rajan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person 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 family members of the deceased were present at the time of inquest proceedings undertaken on 04.11.2024 itself.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶15

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) .

¶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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the family members of the informant were present at the time of inquest proceedings, 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 .

¶18

Let the applicant- Rajan , 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

¶19

court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.8.2025

¶26

(Ravi Kant)

¶27

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶28

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

Rajan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Yaseen vs State of U.P.

Devendra vs State of U.P.

Samar Alam and Another vs State of U.P.

Amrish Sharma vs State of U.P.

Har Prasad Alias Hari Prasad vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Yadav vs State of U.P.