1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2024, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station - Mohammdabad, District - Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The co-accused Sanjeev was apprehended by the informant and other persons of the village at the spot after having committed the murder of brother of the informant on 27.03.2024. The apprehended accused person Sanjeev is stated to have revealed the names of the other accused persons i.e. the applicants, one Sher Singh and Bhure, who have involved in the commissioning of said murder.

5. The applicants and other persons were also seen by two witnesses, namely, Maan Singh and his son Jogendra at the place of occurrence.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR.

7. The FIR is delayed by 11 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The case of the applicants is at a different footing to the case of main accused person Sanjeev.

9. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

11. The applicant nos.1 and 2 are in jail since 01.04.2024 and 15.04.2024, respectively. They have no criminal history to their credit, deserve to be released on bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE:

12. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants could not be disputed and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history. However, they could not dispute the fact that the accused Sanjeev is the main accused perso

CONCLUSION:

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 reiterated 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 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".

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 applicants 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 and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

19. The case of apprehended accused person Sanjeev stands distinguished from the case of other co-accused persons.

20. Let the applicants- Kuldeep and Kamal Pratap, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.