Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134584 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26467 of 2025 Applicant :- Krishna Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karan Pandey,Shivam Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shashi Shekhar Maurya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Karan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, 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.85 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3), 105, 110 B.N.S., Police Station Kakadev, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have thrown the husband of the informant and her brother-in-law (Dewar) Sandeep Yadav from the roof of the house deliberately on 07.04.2025 at about 8:30 p.m. 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 nineteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Two persons had fallen down from the roof. One was the husband of the informant i.e. Deepak Yadav, who succumbed to the injuries sustained and another person was Sandeep Yadav who got injured in the said incident. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the most relevant statement is that of the injured person Sandeep Yadav, who has categorically stated that a physical brawl ensued between the parties and he alongwith his brother were pushed to the parafit wall, which broke and they fell down from the roof. It indicates that there was no intention in the mind of the applicant to commit the said offence. There being absence of any mens-rea or intention in the mind of the applicant, he is entitled for bail. The case does not go beyond voluntarily causing hurt as even no weapon was used. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that the injured person and the deceased had sustained several injuries, but they cannot be attributed to the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the statement of the injured person Sandeep Yadav, 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. 16. Let the applicant- Krishna Yadav, 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. 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad