Harendra Dangi vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30195 of 2025

Harendra Dangi

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Singh Khokher 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 Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.771 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even the name of the applicant did not find mention in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.. The informant has subsequently given an application at the police station alleging that the applicant was seated in the car in which the deceased was taken and put to death by the co-accused persons.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said applicant has been given as an afterthought. No particular role has been assigned in the said application. The said application is hit by Section 181 of B.N.S.S., as such, it cannot be taken into consideration. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

BAIL No. 30195 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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 .

¶17

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” .

¶18

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

¶19

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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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

¶21

BAIL No. 30195 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Harendra Dangi , 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶31

October 9, 2025

¶32

(Ravi Kant)

¶33

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

Harendra Dangi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Dangi 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

Vipanshu Alias Vippu vs State of U.P.

Jaihind Rajbhar vs State of U.P.

Farooq Alias Safi Alias Safia vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Saddam @ Mahtab Alam vs State of U.P.