HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35385 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 115(2), 190, 117(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, Police Station - Dankaur, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up on the basis of CCTV footage wherein he was identified along with other co-accused persons. 5. Learned counsel has argued that there were 60-70 persons, who were seen in the CCTV footage and it is nowhere mentioned that the applicant was the author of the said injury caused to the injured person. Although it is true that injuries are grievous in nature but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pahasu Alias Pasu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has been identified in the CCTV footage and two injured persons have sustained fractures, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 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. 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 AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 10. 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 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 AGA. 11. 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). BAIL No. 35385 of 2025 2 12. 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". 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR and a number of persons shown to be the assailants, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Pahasu Alias Pasu, 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 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. 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 28, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 35385 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad