HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34344 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Indra Kumar Singh, 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 Session Trial No.215 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.16 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Rijor, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was present in the court but he was taken into custody and sent to jail as adjournment was moved on behalf of co-accused person on 4.8.2025. The applicant was already on bail and had cooperated during trial. 5. 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 4.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant and co- accused person are not cooperating with trial and they get the case adjourned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Singh, Shivam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Indra Kumar Singh Dhirendra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) on one pretext or the other. The trial is at its conclusive end as the case is fixed for final arguments. It is the modus operandi of the accused to seek adjournment one after the other and they have also moved transfer applications several times. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". 10. Learned A.G.A could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. 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 was already on bail in the instant case, 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. 12. Let the applicant- Dhirendra, 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 BAIL No. 34344 of 2025 2 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. (iv) The applicant shall not move any adjourment before the trial court whatsoever and shall cooperate with the trial. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. 15. 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. 34344 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad