HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30419 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Dhuriya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.127 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) BNS (old Section 302 I.P.C.), Police Station- Binauli, District- Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the deceased person is stated to be having some love affair with the sister of the applicant who was seen by him, as such, he assaulted him with a cricket bat and committed his murder, who was rushed to CHC, Binauli, whereby he was declared dead. 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 itself indicates that it is a case of sudden provocation as the deceased person was hit by a cricket bat, which is not a weapon rather is used for playing. It is true that applicant exercised his right of private defense as the deceased person had forcibly entered his house and it was a one sided love from the side of deceased Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Dhuriya, Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Tripathi, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, G.A., Mintu Kumar Nikhil .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) person with the sister of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the information fetched under the RTI Act has been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the affidavit filed in Court today, whereby a call was made by the applicant to the police by dialing 112 at 08:56 p.m. the same day and he had informed that some miscreants had entered his house, which indicates that applicant was left with no other option but to act in self-defense. 7. 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 30.4.2025 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant was relative of the deceased person and he has not mentioned his name in the said statement rather has stated that some miscreants (बदमाश) had entered his house. A false CMP has been planted to be carried by the deceased person, 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 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 BAIL No. 30419 of 2025 2 Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". 12. Learned State Law Officer 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 fact that applicant had dialed 112 and informed the police about the incident and had subsequently committed the said offence out of self-defense, 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- Nikhil, 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. 30419 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad