Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Ambreesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.132 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sikandarpur Vaish, District Kasganj, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

As per prosecution story, the applicant and three other co-accused persons are stated to have caught hold of the brother of the informant Ankul, whereby the co-accused person Harishyam called from his mobile no.9837271727 to the nephew of the informant Anmol bearing mobile no.9528430583 and stated that he alongwith co-accused persons had caught hold of the brother of informant and were likely to commit his murder if he did not mend his ways. The said call was made on 12.05.2025 at about 9:00 p.m.

¶12

The dead body of the deceased person was recovered on 13.05.2025 at about 7:00 a.m.

¶13

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 about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay

¶14

BAIL No. 37116 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

caused. The said phone call was made by the main accused person Harishyam who was assigned the role of having shot the deceased person by the eye-witness, who has been roped in subsequently.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even the said eye-witness does not nominate the applicant having caused the said offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 .

¶21

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” .

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

BAIL No. 37116 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

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.

¶27

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 said call was made by the co-accused person Harishyam, 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 .

¶28

Let the applicant- Santosh , 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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶35

October 28, 2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶36

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

Santosh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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