HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22946 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Counter affidavits filed by learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.P. Singh Parmar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Session Trial No.363 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Paikoliya, District- Basti, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted and committed murder of the husband of the informant on 22.11.2024 at about 10:30 p.m. 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 eighteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased person do not match with the prosecution story. The eyes of the victim have not been injured in the said incident. The said FIR is filled up with embellishments. The co-accused persons have been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Kumar Shukla Vinod .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) exonerated by the police, as such, complete prosecution story stands falsified. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is stated to have committed the said offence in an inebriated state, but it is also admitted that deceased person was carrying sharp edged weapon and the applicant had acted in self-defense and had not exceeded it. Only one injury on the cranium of the deceased person had proved fatal to him as fronto parietal bone was found fractured. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it was the foremost duty of the informant to fist save the life of her husband and she rushed him to the hospital and the deceased person was referred to two hospitals and subsequently succumbed to the injuries at Ayodhya, as such, the said delay, if any, stands explained. 10. 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. 11. 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. 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 BAIL No. 22946 of 2025 2 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. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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 injuries sustained by the deceased person do not match with the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR, 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. 15. Let the applicant- Vinod, 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. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 14, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 22946 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad