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.

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2024, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 49 of B.N.S., Police Station Kemari, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim on the false promise of marriage and is stated to have continued the said relationship for a period of four years. The applicant is stated to have refused to comply with the said promise subsequently.

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 instant FIR has simply been instituted to force the applicant to marry the victim as he has been appointed in Provincial Armed Constabulary.

7. The allegations are per se false as they have been escalated to that of giving acid to the victim to consume it on 04.10.2024 but there is no evidence of victim of having consumed the said acid whatsoever.

8. 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. 9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024. 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 :

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

CONCLUSION:

11. 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.

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 recapitulated 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 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".

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, submiss