HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27119 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the informant, 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.38 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 103(1) and 238(a) B.N.S., Police Station Araul, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His named has come up on the basis of suspicion only based on the rumors heard on the village, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the dead body has been recovered at the pointing out of co-accused Nazar Ali only from an abandoned well. A false recovery of a piece of rope and screw driver have been made at the pointing out of the applicant. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shikher Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., P.K. Singh Azhar Ali Alias Ajju .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) reason for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant and the informant has categorically stated in his statement before the court that the applicant had committed the said offence. Even injury nos.11 and 23 would be caused by screw driver only, which was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. 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 for bail is made out. 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. 9. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 10. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”. 11. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. It is 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 BAIL No. 27119 of 2025 2 offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer. 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 the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been nominated on the basis of suspicion only coupled with the fact that the recovery of dead body has been made at the pointing out of co-accused person only, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie 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- Azhar Ali Alias Ajju, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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 27, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 27119 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad