HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35438 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.478 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station-Sardhana, District-Meerut, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have caused gun-shot injury to the deceased person leading to his instantaneous death on 25.07.2025 at about 10:30 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is ante timed which stands established from the fact that inquest proceedings of the deceased person were started on 25.07.2025 at 10:00 PM and were concluded at 11:15 PM. In the intervening period, instant FIR has been instituted at 10:59 PM which is 16 minutes before the conclusion of the inquest proceedings. The informant is Panch witness No.1 in the inquest proceedings. The informant could not be present at two places at a go. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 10 kilometers. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is true that two more witnesses are stated to have seen the incident i.e. Manoj and Gulab Singh but the applicant is entitled for bail as the applicant has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akash Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sudesh Alias Lala .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) implicated in the instant case out of vengeance and there is a local political rivalry between the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that even the post-mortem report does not match with the time of offence as the duration of death was found to be half to one day before the autopsy. The autopsy was conducted in the morning of 26.07.2025 at about 05:30 AM. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that father of the informant and the other two witnesses, namely, Manoj and Gulab Singh has categorically witnessed the incident whereby the applicant had committed the said incident by shooting the deceased person leading to his instantaneous death but could not dispute the said fact as narrated regarding the inquest proceeding and the FIR. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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". 13. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances BAIL No. 35438 of 2025 2 which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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. 15. 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 said inconsistency in the said inquest proceeding and the FIR 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. 16. Let the applicant- Sudesh Alias Lala, 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. 17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 18. 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 14, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 35438 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad