Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137646 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24382 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarvar Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jeetendra Kesharwani,Siddharth Niranjan Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jeetendra Kesharwani, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) of BNS, Police Station - Jhangaha, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:- 4. The applicant and other family members had an altercation with the husband of the informant, Samjaan Ali (now deceased) over the erection of a wall which was demolished during the day. 5. On 03.05.2025 at 01:00 PM, the applicant and other family members are stated to have assaulted the informant and other persons, causing grievous injuries to three persons in all whereby the husband of informant had succumbed to the said injuries sustained, as such, the FIR has been instituted on 03.05.2025 at 11:52 PM against the applicant and co-accused Waseem. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:- 6. The FIR is delayed by about ten hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. It is true that there is one deceased person and two injured persons but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. 8. A cross-case i.e. FIR No. 208 of 2025 was instituted on behalf of the applicant at 05:23 PM itself which was prior to the instant FIR. Since there being a cross-version, at this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. 9. The co-accused, Waseem had also sustained injuries from the applicant's side. Although Waseem is stated to be the main accused, who caused injuries to the informant's husband, leading to his death due the said injuries. 10. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE INFORMANT/ STATE:- 13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant had forcibly thrown the deceased on the floor, thereby caused grievous injuries to him, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 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. 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 another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 15. It is a 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. 16. The said viewpoint was shared in AIR 1924 Cal 476 Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor, whereby the High Court held that bail's purpose is to secure the accused's attendance, not to punish. Courts must consider accusation nature, evidence, likely sentence, and accused's character. 17. In Meerut Conspiracy Case, reported in AIR 1931 All 356 – Emperor v. Hutchinson and AIR 1931 All 504 – K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor, this Court held that High Court's bail power under S.498 CrPC is unfettered but must be exercised judicially. Bail is generally the rule; refusal is exception. 18. In Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830, it was reiterated that object of grant of bail to an accused of an offence is neither punitive nor preventive in nature. The true object behind grant of bail is to secure appearance of accused during trial. Refusal of bail and detention of under trial prisoner in jail to an indefinite period violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should keep in view the principle that grant of bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Seriousness of the offence is not to be treated as the only consideration in refusing bail. 19. Overcrowding in jails and inordinate delay in disposing of cases often result in undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent and incarcerated through no fault of their own, being deprived of their fundamental rights. The failure to ensure a speedy trial despite overcrowding and systemic inefficiencies violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Overcrowding further compounds the problem, as jails house far more inmates than their capacity, with the majority being undertrials which leads to the loss of identity and dignity of prisoners. The state and judiciary are constitutionally mandated to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not wrongfully confined for extended periods and that trials are conducted expeditiously to uphold justice and human dignity. These factors make it entirely justifiable to invoke Article 21 protections in such cases. (See: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695) 20. 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". 21. 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. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that there being cross-version and one person has sustained injuries from the applicant's side also coupled by the fact that there being delay of 10 hours in lodging the instant FIR and also the FIR from the applicant's side has been instituted prior to the instant FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 23. Let the applicant- Sarvar Ansari, 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. 24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 25. 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:- 13.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad