HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35270 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is allowed to correct the memo of the bail application during the course of the day. 3. Heard Sri Ram Neta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.136 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109 B.N.S., Police Station-Baradari, District-Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person Naubat Yadav and five other named accused persons are stated to have came to the office of the son of the informant and caused gun-shot injury to him leading to his death thereby the co-accused person Naubat Yadav again entered the office and caused gun-shot injury to Atul Pandey which hit in his lower side of his back on 11.02.2025 at about 06:00 PM. Thereupon the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have run away from the place of occurrence firing in air. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The role of causing gun-shot injuries to the injured and the deceased person has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Neta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dinesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) been assigned to the co-accused person Naubat Yadav only. The applicant has simply been made an accused on the ground of his relationship with co- accused person-Naubat Yadav. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was fetched whereby the co-accused Naubat Yadav is seen causing gun-shot injury to the deceased and injured person, as such, the case of applicant stands distinguished with the co- accused-Naubat Yadav who is visible in the CCTV Footage. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2025 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 A.G.A. has 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 11. 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". 12. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. BAIL No. 35270 of 2025 2 13. 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 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 AGA. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that it was the co-accused person Naubat Yadav who had caused gun-shot injuries to the deceased person and the injured person 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. 15. Let the applicant-Dinesh Yadav, 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 13, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 35270 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad