HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35824 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.142 of 2024, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the brother of the informant is stated to have gone with the applicant and two other co-accused persons, namely, Ashutosh Mishra and Atul Tripathi, on 11.03.2024 at about 3:00 p.m. and at the said time one Ram Sumer was also present at the house of the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The another real brother of the informant had given an information to the police station stating that his brother had expired under mysterious circumstances and he did not whisper a single word in the said information given on 12.03.02024 at about 10:00 a.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has been nominated as an afterthought out of vengeance. There is no motive for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant to commit the said offence. The star witness of the incident would have been the said Ram Sumer, but no statement of the said witness Ram Sumer has been recorded by the Investigating Officer during his entire investigation and he has submitted the final report (charge-sheet) against the applicant and co-accused persons without statement of the said Ram Sumer. Subsequently, he has taken a supplementary statement of the informant in the supplementary charge-sheet, whereby the informant has denied knowing the said witness Ram Sumer, rather he has stated that the said name was mentioned on being told by his advocate. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2025 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 State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 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 BAIL No. 35824 of 2025 2 exception”. 12. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the supplementary statement of the informant, 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- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, 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. 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 29, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 35824 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad