Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134642 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19753 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections 302, 307, 504 & 323 of IPC, Police Station - Doghat, District - Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his mother and wife is stated to have assaulted the informant's father causing stab wound to him on 25.06.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR, as such, it is delayed. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant himself has sustained stab wound and admitted in hospital. Since there being a cross-version to the instant case, at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. The application u/s 175(3) BNSS has been moved before the court concerned and it has yet to be disposed of. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that two injuries were sustained by the deceased person, although, the cause of death of deceased has been found to be shock & hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries but the said injuries cannot be assigned to the cause of his death. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.08.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 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 Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 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. 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. 13. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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 AGA. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there is no mentioning of time of offence in the FIR coupled by the fact that the injuries of the applicant sustained has not been explained by the prosecution, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Ravi, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 18. 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad