HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7114 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.319 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(1), 191(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons Vikram, Vivek, Vinay and Vishal is stated to have caused injuries to the deceased person armed with lathi, danda and iron rod, whereby injuring him grievously on 20.9.2024 at about 03:00 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 more than five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. It is true that thirteen injuries were sustained by the deceased person, but only four injuries were grievous in nature, which were lacerated wounds, and the other injuries were abraded contusion. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gyan Singh, Manoj Kumar Yadav, Sukhvir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Akshay .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next contended that the accused persons are five in number and there are only four lacerated wounds sustained by the deceased person. The eye-witnesses have categorically stated that it was the accused person Vivek who had assaulted the deceased person and inflicted fatal injury to him. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.9.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional BAIL No. 7114 of 2025 2 circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 15. 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 there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant, 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. 16. Let the applicant- Akshay, 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. 17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 18. 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 27, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 7114 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad