Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2025BAIL/37311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a murder case under the BNS where the FIR was delayed about 16 days and no missing-person report was filed. Relying on the principle that bail is a rule and jail an exception, and noting the applicant's clean record, the court released him on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence, witnesses and trial attendance.

Rahul vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37311 of 2025

¶3

Rahul

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: C.D.Mishra
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 Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri C.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 351(3), 352 of BNS, Police Station - Bhopa, District - Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken away the deceased person along with him, leaving behind her children, on 02.03.2025 at about 08:00 PM and subsequently, her dead body was recovered from a canal ( Gang Nahar ) on 17.03.2025, as such, the FIR has been instituted by the informant the next day i.e. on 18.03.2025.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about 16 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

Learned counsel has also stated that there is no evidence on record to suggest that that applicant was seen with the deceased person at the place

¶13

BAIL No. 37311 of 2025

¶14

¶15

of recovery of dead body. The allegation is that the applicant took away the deceased person along with him and subsequently, he has been foisted in her murder case on the basis of statement of her minor children as an afterthought.

¶16

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and 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.

¶21

BAIL No. 37311 of 2025

¶22

¶23

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) .

¶24

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 ".

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the informant did not care to institute any report regarding missing of his wife, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Rahul , 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 29, 2025 Siddhant

¶34

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

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Munendra @ Tillu vs State of U.P.

Santosh vs State of U.P.

Manoj Lodhi vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Arbaz vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Gudiya Alias Saroj vs State of U.P.