HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27013 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2), 351(1) B.N.S., Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith four other named accused persons and some unknown persons are stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the brother of the informant who was coming after conducting the last rites of a relative on 26.12.2024 at about 2:40 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 about twenty one hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. No particular overt act has been assigned to the applicant. There is stated to be a video made at the time of offence, but there is no video on record to corroborate the said prosecution story. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that this Court had passed an order for furnishing the incriminating evidences including the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pandey, Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Kumar Ojha Vineet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) video footage, if any, of the incident vide order dated 04.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19451 of 2025, but no video has been furnished by the prosecution to date. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that two of the witnesses have not nominated the applicant as they have stated that they they do not identify the assailant, but one Jasvendra has nominated the applicant, but he has also allayed general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025 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 counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the police had acted in collusion with the applicant and has not taken on record the video, which stands mentioned in the FIR itself. 9. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the fact that there is no video on record as per his instructions and the case diary. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 BAIL No. 27013 of 2025 2 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”. 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 fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant, 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. 16. Let the applicant- Vineet, 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. 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. 27013 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad