HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25331 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 238, 315, 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up after a delay of about two months of the incident. The named accused persons were Om Prakash, Jai Prakash, Shyam and Rohit @ Ravi. The co-accused persons, namely, Om Prakash, Jai Prakash and Shyam, have been exonerated by the informant and the police, rather the applicant alongwith named accused person Rohit @ Ravi have been subsequently mentioned to be the persons who committed the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the name of the applicant has come up as an afterthought, as such, he is entitled for bail. The FIR itself is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, G.A., Rashmi Upadhyay Harikesh Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the CDR of the applicant, the deceased person and the co-accused person, the location of the applicant was found within the area of the same tower and he was in regular conversation with the co-accused person and the deceased, as such, the 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer 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 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 BAIL No. 25331 of 2025 2 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the applicant being nominated after sixty days after the FIR, 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- Harikesh Singh, 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 pressurise/intimidate with 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 9, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 25331 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad