The presumption of innocence is fundamental; bail is a rule and imprisonment an exception, requiring substantial grounds for denial.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2024, under Sections 64, 351(3) of B.N.S. and section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim as the marriage was already agreed to be solemnized between the two. The applicant kept on dilly dallying with the marriage and had even video recorded the said indecent act.

5. The applicant is stated to have blackmailed the victim for a substantial period of time and even sent the indecent act to the erstwhile groom where the marriage of the victim was agreed to be solemnized.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. There is no recovery of any video whatsoever.

8. The applicant is a widower and has an offspring from his earlier marriage and the victim herein is his relative and it was agreed upon between the parties to get the marriage solemnized for the sake of life of the offspring but both of them fell apart, as such the instant FIR was instituted.

9. There is no medical corroboration of the said incident.

10. The victim is major aged about 22 years and the applicant himself is 34 years old.

11. 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. 12. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024. 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 :

13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

16. 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.

17. 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 .

18. 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