HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32418 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jalaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted the father of the informant, causing grievous stab injuries to him on 14.03.2025 at about 9:30 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR categorically indicates that at the exhortation of co-accused person Davir Ali, co-accused Najeem is stated to have stabbed the deceased person in his abdomen and the applicant had caused several injuries to the injured person. The FIR itself is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution story has gone topsy turvy as the injured person has changed the version drastically. He has subsequently assigned the role of assaulting and causing stab wound to the applicant and the other injuries are stated to have been caused by co-accused Najeem. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jalaj Kumar Tripathi Munazir .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) inconsistency in the statement speaks volume of false implication. The other witnesses have not assigned any role to any particular person. They have made general and omnibus allegations against all the accused person. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is recovery of a knife at the pointing out of the applicant and the injured person has categorically assigned the role to the applicant of having caused stab wound to the deceased person, which led to his death, as such, he is not entitled for 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. 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 BAIL No. 32418 of 2025 2 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 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 said inconsistency in the FIR to the statement of the injured person, 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- Munazir, 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 13, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 32418 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad