Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53742 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10980 of 2025 Applicant :- Jaggu @ Jhagaru @ Vivek Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Kamlesh Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1950 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District - Jalaun, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have assaulted the informant and other family members thereby causing injuries to five persons in all on 02.07.2015 at about 08:00 am. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 6. The FIR is delayed by about 8 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 8. The proceedings qua the applicant were stayed by this Court, as such, his trial was separated but the other co-accused persons have been tried in S.T. No.155 of 2015 and they all have been acquitted as the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. 9. The doctrine of stare decisis applies to the case of the applicant, as such, applicant is entitled for bail. 10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 11. The criminal history of one case has been explained. 12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.02.2025 deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER: 13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION: 14. 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. 15. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 16. 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". 17. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 18. 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 State Law Officer. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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. 20. Let the applicant- Jaggu @ Jhagaru @ Vivek Kumar, 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 22. 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. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad