NITIN BATA @ HARSH TOMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8308 of 2026

Nitin Bata @ Harsh Tomar
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Aushim Luthra, Irshad Husain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A.

Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.28 out of 116)


                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri
R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.191 of 2025, under Sections
191(2), 140(1), 103(1), 238, 3(5) and 61(2) BNS, Police Station Kapurpur,
District Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith seven other named accused persons and some
unknown persons is stated to have entered into an altercation with the
deceased person on 18.4.2025 at about 05:30 p.m. and the applicant and
other accused persons had threatened the deceased to put him to death.

5. On 5.9.2025 at about 07:00 p.m., the deceased was getting ready to leave
his house for Noida, whereby his half burnt dead body was recovered from
the village Devrala, Pahasu Road, P.S. Shikarpur on 7.9.2025. In the
meantime, the informant kept on receiving messages from the phone of his
son, as such, the informant got confused and could not institute any FIR at
the police station.

6. It was suspected by the informant that the applicant and other accused
                                                          BAIL No. 8308 of 2026
                                 2


persons had hatched conspiracy and committed the said murder.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

7. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.

8. The FIR is delayed as the son of the informant had left the house on
5.9.2025, but it was instituted on 10.9.2025, i.e. after a delay of five days.
There is no explanation of the said delay caused.

9. The dead body was already received and the postmortem examination was
conducted on 8.9.2025 itself, i.e. three days after the son of the informant
left the house, but the time of death in the postmortem report is stated to be
two weeks before by the doctor conducting postmortem examination.

10. It was particularly observed by the doctor that postmortem staining was
uncertain due to decomposed body. Decomposed body, foul smell present,
maggots present about 2 cm, skin peeled off, scrotum and abdomen
distended, which indicates that the death was caused much before the said
statement of the informant regarding his son leaving the house on 5.9.2025.

11. The informant has subsequently changed his version and a last seen
witness has been created. The said witness is Firoz, whose statement was
recorded on 14.9.2025. He has stated that he had seen the applicant and other
co-accused person alongwith the deceased person on 4.9.2025, i.e. one day
before the deceased left his house. The said story does not carry any weight
as it does not stand corroborated from the postmortem report and the FIR.

12. A false recovery of bag of the deceased has been foisted on the applicant
when he was arrested. The said bag of the deceased contained Aadhar Card
and other documents belonging to the deceased. There is no reason for
applicant to carry those documents and bag with him.

13. The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. He is
languishing in jail since 24.9.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial
and not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
                                                            BAIL No. 8308 of 2026
                                 3


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

CONCLUSION:

15. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another,
2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case of bail is made out.

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 is a rule and jail is an
exception”.

19. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional
circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. 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
A.G.A./State Law Officer.
                                                                                                BAIL No. 8308 of 2026
                                                                       4


                                    21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made
                                    by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the delay in
                                    institution of FIR, 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.

                                    22. Let the applicant- Nitin Bata @ Harsh Tomar, be released on bail on
                                    furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
                                    concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he
                                    shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
                                    before the trial court as required.

                                    23. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
                                    observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                                (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Vikas Verma




Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad