HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33434 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 115(2), 351(3), 190, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Mohana, District- Siddharth Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and five other accused persons are stated to have ambushed and started assaulting the deceased person causing grievous injuries, whereby three other persons intervened and they also sustained injuries in the incident of 15.3.2025 at about 08:00 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 sixteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased person had sustained simple injuries except one injury on his cranium, whereby injury was observed on the occipital region of the deceased which proved fatal to him. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that one of the said three other injured persons had not sustained a single injury and the other Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan, Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Singh Manish Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) two persons had sustained simple injuries, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. No particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant himself sustained injuries in the incident. Although the duration was found to be 4-5 days as he was examined after three days of the incident, but it also matches with the incident. 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 18.3.2025 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. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 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 BAIL No. 33434 of 2025 2 by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons coupled with the fact that applicant himself had sustained injuries in the incident and no particular overt act has been assigned to him, 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- Manish Kumar, 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. 33434 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad