Aakash Prajapati @ Aakash vs State of U.P.

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

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 238 of BNS, Police Station - Sandeepan Ghat, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion only. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The evidence of last seen has been foisted on him. There is no eye-witness to the incident.

¶12

Learned counsel has also stated that there is no motive for the applicant to commit the said offence. The applicant was driving the Ertiga car of his father and the GPS location indicates that he was roaming at several places. A false recovery of mobile of the deceased person has also been foisted on him.

¶13

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and

¶14

BAIL No. 31977 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

shall cooperate with trial.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶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. 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 . Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶19

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 AGA.

¶20

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) .

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 31977 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

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 ".

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Aakash Prajapati @ Aakash , 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.

¶27

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶33

October 15, 2025

¶34

Siddhant

¶35

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

Aakash Prajapati @ Aakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash Prajapati @ Aakash 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

Seema Devi vs State of U.P.

Raj Alias Bihari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Savita Alias Chirag vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jamuna Devi @ Jyoti vs State of U.P.

Jatin vs State of U.P.

Sagar vs State of U.P.