Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134828 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14353 of 2025 Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Saroj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar,Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Mani,Pusp Raj Singh,Sharad Kumar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjeev Mishra, Advocate holding of Sri Pusp Raj, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0320 of 2024, under Sections 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Sarai Memrez, District- Ganganagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the happens to be the owner of the hospital where the cesarean section of the daughter of the informant was conducted and thereby led her to death on 30.02.2024. The deceased was admitted in the hospital on 21.12.2024. 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 one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not a medical practitioner rather he is the owner of the hospital and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed statement of two doctors, namely, Dr. Anil Kumar and Dr. Amar Bahadur by way of supplementary affidavit who had stated that deceased was carrying twins and she was admitted in the hospital after due signatures of the guardian of the deceased person on the Consent Form. The case against the co-accused person also does not go beyond the rash and negligent act, as such applicant is entitled for bail. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is not named in the FIR and was responsible for the said operation. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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”. 11. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 12. 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. 13. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted. 14. 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 applicant has not operated the deceased coupled with the fact that FIR is delayed by about one day 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- Brijesh Kumar Saroj, 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. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad