HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35811 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Divyansh Rai, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.214 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(A) B.N.S., Police Station Bankata, District Deoria, 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 name has come up for the first time on the basis of an information received from a squealer and subsequently three witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely, Firoz Ahmad, Prafull and Vishesh Kumar Maddheshiya, who are stated to have seen the applicant at the place of occurrence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The only evidence that has come up is that the applicant had regular telephonic conversation with the main assailants who had committed the murder, which establishes that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence. Had it been so, there Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, R.K.Paramhans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Divyansh Rai, G.A. Pradeep Maddheshiya .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) would have been no reason for him to talk to the main assailants on phone. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that there is no test identification parade of the applicant as per Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 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 BAIL No. 35811 of 2025 2 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 fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently in the statement of three eye-witnesses coupled with the fact that there is telephonic conversation between the accused persons, 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- Pradeep Maddheshiya, 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 29, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 35811 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad