Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Devesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25851 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 452, 354 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail during trial for charges of abetment of suicide and outraging modesty - Allegations include barging into the deceased's house and subsequent suicide - No overt act assigned to applicant - Bail granted based on presumption of innocence and lack of exceptional circumstances. (Paras 13, 14, 17)
(B) Right to Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Indian Constitution - Guarantees that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away without due process - Reiterated that bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of entering the home of a newly married woman and allegedly outraging her modesty, leading to her suicide. The matter was initially settled locally before the suicide occurred. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found no overt act attributed to the applicant regarding the abetment of suicide and emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's implication in the suicide and the justification for granting bail despite serious allegations. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's right to bail is supported by the presumption of innocence and the absence of any evidence suggesting he would flee or tamper with evidence. (Paras 13, 17)
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Smt. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jai Kishan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2024, under Sections 306, 452, 354 of I.P.C. Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Etah, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The allegations against the applicant is that he has barged into the house of the deceased person, who is newly married lady, on 27.04.2024 and outraged her modesty. The matter was reported to the police station on 28.04.2024 but the matter was settled with the intervention of the persons of the locality.
5. Peeved by the said compromise, the deceased person is stated to have committed suicide by hanging her to the ceiling within the precincts of the house of her in-laws in the same night of 27.04.2024 at 21:29 hours.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.
7. No ingredients of Sections 306 & 107 of IPC are fulfilled.
8. The applicant himself is a youth aged about 22 years.
9. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:
11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the deceased was a newly married lady and the FIR has been instituted by the SHO of the police station concerned and there is no occasion for him to falsely implicate the innocent person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
12. 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.
13. 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 Ors. 2022 INSC 690.
14. 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.”
15. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
16. 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 AGA.
17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception, grounded in the presumption of innocence and the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; presumption of innocence must guide bail decisions.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
Bail is a rule, not a punishment; the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty, with conditions set to ensure trial attendance.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
