Samay Singh vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42403 of 2025

Samay Singh

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj 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 Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.255 of 2025, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

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 22 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant is Panch witness no.3 in the inquest proceedings, which were complete by 09:50 p.m. on 4.8.2025 itself. The informant did not mention a single word against the applicant whatsoever in the inquest report, but she instituted the FIR the next day on 5.8.2025 at about 07:54 a.m.

¶12

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no ocular evidence to the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the

¶13

BAIL No. 42403 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 .

¶19

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 ".

¶20

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

¶21

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 of 22 hours in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings, which were concluded well before the institution of FIR, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima faice , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Samay Singh , 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

¶23

BAIL No. 42403 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

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

December 2, 2025

¶33

Vikas Verma

¶34

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

Samay Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samay Singh 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

Similar cases

Sudarshan vs State of U.P.

Lalita Gangwar vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Awasthi Alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Vinod vs State of U.P.

Sarik @ Khania vs State of U.P.

Sanoj Urf Kala vs State of U.P.