HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27578 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.133 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith co-accused persons Ramvir and Suresh are stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to two persons in all, whereby one of the said injured person succumbed to the injuries sustained subsequently. The assault is stated to have been made on 28.05.2025 at about 6:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against against all the accused persons in the FIR, but subsequently the said injured person has assigned the role of assaulting with lathi to co-accused person Suresh, as such, the case of the applicants stands distinguished to the co-accused person Suresh. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Yadav, Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Singh Bhodal And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further argued that there is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 18.06.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants. 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 applicants. 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 applicants 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. BAIL No. 27578 of 2025 2 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the said statement of the injured person, whereby he has assigned the role of assault to co-accused person Suresh, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicants- Bhodal and Pushpendra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 7, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 27578 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad