Tinku Alias Pintu Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29110 of 2025

Tinku Alias Pintu

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Hemendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.153 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Fatehganj West, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted under suspicion that the applicant, who had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased person, might have committed the murder of the brother of the informant on 13.4.2025.

¶11

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 three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that even no time of offence is mentioned in the FIR. The FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only. Subsequently, the prosecution has roped in three more witnesses, namely, Ansul, Himanshu and Rahul, who are stated to have seen the applicant in the vicinity of place of occurrence, as such, it is a clear cut

¶13

BAIL No. 29110 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

case of false implication.

¶16

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2025 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. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 .

¶20

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 ".

¶21

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

¶22

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 FIR has been instituted on the basis of suspicion only, 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 .

¶23

BAIL No. 29110 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Let the applicant- Tinku Alias Pintu , 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶32

October 28, 2025

¶33

Vikas Verma

¶34

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tinku Alias Pintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Alias Pintu 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