IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal, J.
Satul Alias Mahendra Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1477 of 2025
Decided On : 11-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 108, 64(1), 115(2), 3(5) - Bail application in a case involving suicide of victim due to blackmail and extortion - The applicant contended false implication and absence of overt acts leading to the victim’s suicide - No criminal history and willingness to cooperate with trial were emphasized. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 18)
(B) Presumption of Innocence - The principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is emphasized, establishing bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. (Paras 13, 15)
(C) Right to Life and Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution safeguards life and personal liberty, mandating due process before deprivation. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of blackmailing the victim, leading to her suicide on 01.09.2024. The applicant claims false implication and has no prior criminal record.
Findings of Court:
The court found no exceptional circumstances to deny bail and allowed the application.
Issues: The main issues were the applicant’s alleged involvement in the suicide and the justification for granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the necessity of presuming innocence and the principle that bail should not be denied without compelling reasons.
Result: Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Krishan Pahal, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Sections 108, 64(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken certain indecent photographs and video of the victim and had started blackmailing her subsequently, and had even extorted lacs of rupees from her thereby had drawn the victim to commit suicide. The victim had committed suicide on 01.09.2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :
5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.
6. The cause of death was found to be to Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.
7. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant of having abeted the victim to commit suicide.
8. Although, it is true that the register was found of which, name of the applicant is present whereby it is mentioned that the applicant and other co-accused persons have raped her.
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. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.09.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE :
11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the name of the applicant was found on the register in the writing of the victim.
CONCLUSION:
12. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, AIR 1980 SC 785 , this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.
13. 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.
14. 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 .
15. 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".
16. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
17. 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.
18. Considering the facts
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 is an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
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 guide bail decisions.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment 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; the presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty, with conditions set to ensure trial attendance.
The presumption of innocence is fundamental; bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception, requiring substantial grounds for denial.
The presumption of innocence mandates that bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances justify its denial, reinforcing the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is an exception....
Bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception; the presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.