Allahabad High Court
Shagun Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135690 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14340 of 2025 Applicant :- Shagun Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Tripathi,Shiv Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Khanna,Sandal Khanna Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri S.P.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.88 of 2025, under Sections 77, 78, 79, 109, 191(2), 190 B.N.S. and 11/12 POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The daughter of the informant alongwith other friends was standing in front of Anandam City on 07.02.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., whereby a car no.UP27 AB 2525 stopped there and the applicant and four other named accused persons deboarded the said car and started outraging the modesty of the said girls.
5. On their objecting to the said act, the applicant and all the accused persons are stated to have again boarded the car and brought the car back to the place of occurrence and crushed the injured persons with an intention to cause their death, thereby grievously injuring them all.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
8. It is true that six girls had sustained injuries, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.
9. Subsequently, it has been stated that the applicant was driving the said car, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said car. The said car was in the name of one Jagvir Singh s/o Mahavir Singh and the said car has been released by the said person only from the court concerned. Even the CCTV footage does not indicate that the applicant was driving the said car.
10. The CCTV footage categorically indicates that the said car lost control and incidentally met with an accident, thereby injured six girls in all.
11. It is true that one of the girl has sustained grievous injuries and she was hospitalized for a substantial period of time.
12. There is no test identification as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam to indicate that it was the applicant and other persons who had committed the said offence.
13.The co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused persons, as such, he is entitled for bail.
14. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2025 and 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/INFORMANT:
15. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that one of the injured person Rishika Rastogi had sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized at Max Health Care Institute, Delhi and one of the injury was on her cheek, which has caused permanent scar to her and has ruined her life for ever.
16. The said injured has been subjected to plastic surgery and shall have to face trauma for rest of her life.
17. The CCTV footage taken into possession by the Investigating Officer indicates that the said car was being driven at a very high speed and the said accident has been caused intentionally to cause the death of the said girls, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
18. Learned A.G.A. was asked to peruse the said CCTV footage from the pen-drive and he has stated that the said car is seen coming at a high speed and causing the said accident, but he has categorically stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the said car went back and after making a u-turn had reached the place of occurrence. The car was seen coming to the place of occurrence once only. There is no person who could be identified in the said car.
CONCLUSION:
19.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. 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 inSatenderKumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
20. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
21. It is a 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 learnedA.G.A./State Law Officer.
22. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi Vs. King-Emperor,AIR 1924 Cal 476,whereby the High Court held that bail’s purpose is to secure the accused’s attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused’s character.
23. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 ? Emperor Vs. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 ? K. N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor, this Court held that High Court’s bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception.
24. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail.
25. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695).
26. 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”.
27. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.
28.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of seven hours in institution of FIR and the fact that the said CCTV footage does not indicate towards the fact that the applicant had taken a u-turn and come again at the place of occurrence for causing the said offence, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
29. Let the applicant-Shagun Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
30. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
31. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)