HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31502 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lal Behari Yadav, learned counsel for the informant, 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.184 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Mau, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted regarding the murder of friend of informant on 10.06.2025 at about 7:30 p.m. armed with several weapons. 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 five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up on the basis of CDRs and the location of the applicant in the vicinity. The role of the applicant is stated to have conducted to recce of the place of occurrence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Had he been involved in the offence, his name would have come up in the FIR itself as he is known to the informant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kaushlendra, Vikram Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lal Behari Yadav Rahul Sonkar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the call details indicate that the applicant had regular parlays with the co-accused persons and one of the said call is for three hours. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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”. 11. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. 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. BAIL No. 31502 of 2025 2 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 fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been assigned the role of having been done recce, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Rahul Sonkar, 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. 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 13, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 31502 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad