HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35587 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) of BNS and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station - Rahra, District - J.P. Nagar (Amroha), during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued 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 in the statement of three eye-witnesses, namely, Naushad, Momin and Shavej and that too after a delay of five days. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the eye-witness Naushad is one of the panch witnesses to the inquest proceedings, as such, the applicant has been nominated as an afterthought. Criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Saleem .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was seen at the place of occurrence and played active role in the commissioning of said offence as he was also carrying a country made pistol, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 BAIL No. 35587 of 2025 2 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). 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". 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of the witnesses, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Saleem, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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. 35587 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad