HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33145 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.134 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 131, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Kant, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the brother of the informant. There are allegations that the applicant even hit the informant with the butt of the riffle he was carrying, and subsequently, caused rifle shot injury to the deceased person on 15.3.2025 at about 11:30 p.m. 5. Learned Senior 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 thirteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecutions story stands falsified from the fact that the informant has not sustained any injury as there is no injury report in support of allegations made in the FIR. Had it been so, the injuries would have been observed on his cranium. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has further stated that it has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Sheshadri Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shivraj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) come up in the inquest report that deceased had sustained gunshot injuries in his leg, but it is true that lacerated wounds were observed but the doctor had not found them to be fatal rather the cause of death was antemortem head injury. The informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings which were started on 16.9.2025 at 08:20 a.m. and were concluded at 09:50 a.m., but he did not care to institute the FIR by then rather instituted the FIR in the afternoon at 12:29 p.m. the same day. 7. It is further argued by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the inquest report is contradictory to the postmortem report. The inquest proceedings were started on the basis of memo deposited at the police station by the ward boy of the hospital concerned. The inordinate delay in institution of FIR goes unexplained. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.3.2025 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 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 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". BAIL No. 33145 of 2025 2 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. 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 coupled with the fact that informant was present at the time of inquest proceedings, 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- Shivraj, 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 9, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 33145 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad