HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34087 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pt. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikas Tiwari, 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.608 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 333, 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station-Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, there was an earlier litigation going on between the parties in which the co-accused persons were accused. The applicant and three other co-accused persons are stated to have barged into the house of the informant in the evening on 18.12.2024 at about 07:00 PM whereby co- accused Hariom caused stab wounds to the abdomen of the deceased person causing his death. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three hours and there is no explanation to the said delay caused. The role of the applicant is different to the main accused person Hariom. The said co- accused Hariom has been assigned the role of having caused the stab wounds. No weapon has been shown being carried by the applicant at the time of offence, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The motive, if any, was carried by Hariom and Rishabh only as earlier a case was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pt. S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arun Ahirwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) pending against Hariom and Rishabh and not the applicant. The applicant was child at the time of institution of said FIR. 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant carried common intention to commit the said offence as he along with co- accused person had broken open the gate and barged into the house and co-accused person had assaulted the deceased and caused stab wounds to him, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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". 10. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the BAIL No. 34087 of 2025 2 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. 12. 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 fact that no weapon has been assigned to the applicant and he has simply been shown to have accompanied the co- accused person 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. 13. Let the applicant- Arun Ahirwar, 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. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. 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. 34087 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad