HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26843 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 3(5), 352, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Jakhura, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Brajbhan are stated to have assaulted the father of the informant with an axe, causing grievous injuries to his head on 19.04.2025 at about 5:30 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by more than three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The deceased has sustained only one injury on his cranium, although the cranium was found fractured, but the prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the FIR mentions that both the accused persons had hit the deceased person with axe. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that subsequently the statement of eye-witness Ajeet Yadav ws recorded who has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased person with axe to co-accused person Brajbhan. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijit Saxena Ramraja .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 8. 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. 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 recapitulated 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 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”. 11. Learned A.G.A./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 A.G.A./State Law Officer. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made BAIL No. 26843 of 2025 2 by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is only one injury sustained by the injured person and two persons were assigned the role of having assaulted the deceased person with axe and also taking into consideration the said statement of Ajeet Yadav, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Ramraja, 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. 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. October 8, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 26843 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad