HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34301 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad, 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.185 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Aurai, District- Bhadohi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and three other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of the brother of the informant on 20.8.2024 at about 07:00 p.m. 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 FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR and the same allegations have been reiterated by the informant in his statement recorded U/s 180 BNSS. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently two witnesses, namely, Hari Nath and Ashok were examined and they have categorically assigned the role of having assaulted the deceased and caused Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vishnu Bind .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) fatal injury to his neck to co-accused person Pintu Bind. The applicant has been assigned the role of having caught hold only. The postmortem report indicated only one fatal injury, whereby cut of right carotid artery and right carotid vein were found, which led to the immediate death of the deceased person. The other two injuries are minor in nature. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of applicant is at different footing to main accused person Pintu Bind. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.8.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that case of the applicant is covered by Section 3(5) of BNS as the applicant carried common intention to commit the said offence. 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". 12. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. BAIL No. 34301 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 there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR and the witnesses have assigned the main role of causing fatal injury to the deceased person to co-accused person Pintu Bind, 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. The case of applicant is distinguished to co-accused person Pintu Bind. 15. Let the applicant- Vishnu Bind, 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 14, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 34301 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad