Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129485 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26509 of 2025 Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Phool Chandra,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109 of BNS, Police Station - Heempur Deepa, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons is stated to have armed with lathi & danda and assaulted the injured person on 03.04.2025 at about 09:00 AM. 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 are general and omnibus allegations levelled in the FIR against all the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the weapons attributed to the accused persons are lathi & danda and the injuries sustained by the injured have been caused by hard and blunt object. There was an incised wound sustained by the injured person which was on the left side of his skull. It is argued that the introduction of weapon farsa in the statement of the injured and eyewitness is an afterthought. The alleged weapon farsa should have been mentioned in the FIR itself as the same has been instituted after a delay of more than four hours. The delay has also not been explained. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the injuries are simple in nature. Although the injury report reveals a fracture of the right temporal bone extending to parietal bone. The said fracture may be grievous but the instant case may not go beyond culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, as such, the punishment would be less than seven years' imprisonment. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.04.2025, 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 State Law Officer 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. 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. 10. 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". 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also considering the fact that general role has been assigned to all the accused person coupled by the fact that the injured in his statement has assigned the role of assaulting him with danda and the injuries caused by hard and blunt object are simple in nature, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Irshad, 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. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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:- 1.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad