Salman vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as recognized by the Apex Court, particularly in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, citing Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court found no exceptional circumstances presented by the State to deny bail. No material was shown by the State to suggest that the applicant would tamper with evidence or witnesses, intimidate witnesses, subvert justice, or flee from justice. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and no such material was presented by the State. Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of the offence, the evidence, the complicity of the accused, and the submissions of the parties, the Court allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and adhering to specific conditions including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court, not committing similar offences, not inducing or threatening anyone, not leaving India without permission, and informing the court of any change in address.

Facts

The applicant, Salman, is accused of registering a firm using his Aadhaar card, through which transactions to the tune of Rs. 145.88 lakhs were allegedly made, despite the firm not being in existence. A charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been in jail since April 19, 2026. He contends that Section 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is not attracted, and the maximum sentence under the relevant BNS sections is seven years, while under the GST Act, it is five years. The trial is to be conducted by a Magistrate. The applicant has no prior criminal history and assures cooperation with the trial. The State opposed the bail application but did not dispute the factual matrix.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature of the alleged offence under the GST Act and BNS, the applicant's period of detention, lack of criminal history, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The petitioner argued that Section 338 of the BNS is not applicable, the maximum sentence under the BNS is seven years and under the GST Act is five years, the trial is by a Magistrate, and the applicant has no criminal history. The petitioner also stated they have been in jail since April 19, 2026, and will not misuse bail or tamper with evidence. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the factual matrix, nor did it present any facts or circumstances indicating criminal history, antecedents, likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses, or any other exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail.