HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32304 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ujair Sarfraj, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 118(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Bara, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith five other co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to Dhirendra Pratap Yadav, Sadhana Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Raghvendra Yadav and Urmila Yadav on 18.6.2025. One of the injured persons Dhirendra Pratap Yadava succumbed to the injuries. 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 about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and no particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the FIR indicated Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Shahibe Alam, Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Krishna Kumar Mishra, Ujair Sarfraj, Vikesh Kumar Tiwari Mulayam Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) that injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon, but subsequently in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer U/s 180 BNSS, danda has also been introduced just to match it with the injury report. The prosecution story further stands falsified from the fact that one of the said injured persons Sadhana Yadav has not sustained any injury whatsoever. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently the statement of one of the injured persons Raghvendra Yadav was recorded and he has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased person with danda to co-accused person Vipin Yadav, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.6.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the delay in institution of FIR stands explained from the fact that the informant rushed the injured persons to hospital to save their lives but one of them Dhirendra Pratap Yadav succumbed to the injuries, as such, the informant after admitting the injured persons for treatment had instituted the FIR. It has come up in the statement of injured person that occurrence is of 18.6.2025 at about 08:00 p.m. As such, the applicant is not entitled for 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. 10. 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. 11. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again BAIL No. 32304 of 2025 2 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. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 delay in institution of FIR and the discrepancy in the number of injured persons coupled with the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Mulayam Singh Yadav, 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. 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 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32304 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad