HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31251 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Navin Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 103(1), 238, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Sarpataha, District- Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, co-accused person Pankaj Singh and 3-4 unknown persons are stated to have taken away the brother of the informant on 8.4.2025 at about 04:00 p.m. and has subsequently committed his murder and deliberately dropped his dead body about 100 meters from his house in the agricultural field. 5. Learned 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 allegations are per se false and the applicant has been made an accused on the basis of suspicion only. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that prior to the institution of FIR, the informant had given an information at the police station which was entered at GD no.24 at 11:37 a.m. on 9.4.2025 itself, i.e. one day before the institution of FIR and the informant did not whisper a Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Singh, Tej Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Navin Singh, Ranjana Singh Parmesh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) single word about the deceased being taken by the applicant or having been murdered by him, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no other evidence except the confessional statement of applicant and co- accused persons before the police, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.4.2025 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 counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 12. 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. 31251 of 2025 2 13. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 information given by the informant at the police station on 9.4.2025 and there being no evidence except the confessional statement of applicant and other co-accused persons, 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. 15. Let the applicant- Parmesh 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 10, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31251 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad