HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34880 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Ramnagar, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with her husband and one another co-accused person is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the informant's brother on 10.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. No time of offence is mentioned in the FIR and it is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the deceased person has expired subsequently. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the statement of the victim (now deceased) was recorded by the Investigating Officer as in his statement, he has stated that the applicant along with his wife and one Muse Yadav has assaulted with danda and caused grievous injuries to him. It is argued Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jeera Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that the husband of the applicant had made a call and informed the police and even sent the injured person on an ambulance to the hospital and the said fact has been mentioned in the case diary, as such, the said statement is also questionable. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is a video whereby the injured is seen narrating the incident but therein also, no person has been nominated by him rather he told that he would disclose the names of accused the next day. 8. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is a lady and has simply been made an accused on account of his relationship with Nand Lal Yadav, who happens to be her husband. She is languishing in jail since 4.6.2025, having no criminal history to her credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 10. 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 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. 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 BAIL No. 34880 of 2025 2 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 State Law Officer. 12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; 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). 13. 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". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and even no time of offence mentioned in it and also considering the fact that no overt act assigned to the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant- Jeera Devi, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground BAIL No. 34880 of 2025 3 for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 10, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 34880 of 2025 4 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad