HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32775 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohammad Danish, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 118(1), 115(2), 103(1), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith seven other named accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to three persons in all on 12.5.2025 at about 07:30 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that one person had expired in the incident but three persons from the side of applicant had also sustained injuries and they were medically examined on the date of incident. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no explanation of the injuries sustained by three persons from the side of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Danish, Saif Ali Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, Noori Ullah Yaseen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant. The informant gave an affidavit before the Investigating Officer stating that he has wrongly nominated Mohd. Naseem as one of the assailants instead of assailant Gula Sabir. The said fact indicates that it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no FIR instituted from the side of applicant and the injuries sustained by three persons from his side indicates that they were present at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that inadvertently as typographical error the typist wrongly transcribed the name of one Mohd. Naseem instead of Gula Sabir. 9. 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. 10. 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 another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 11. 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". BAIL No. 32775 of 2025 2 12. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that FIR is delayed and there is no explanation of the injuries sustained by the persons from the side of applicant coupled by the fact that name of one of the assailants has been changed subsequently, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Yaseen, 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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. October 7, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32775 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad