HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28271 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.57 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Sasanigate, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith her husband Vikas Saxena @ Chhote Kalia, co-accused person Vishal Saxena and other persons are stated to have fired and caused gunshot injury to the husband of the informant and had also caused injuries to her son. The applicant is stated to have assaulted the son of the informant with the butt of the CMP she was carrying on 4.2.2025 at about 08:30 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. She has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is true that applicant is named in the FIR, but she has not been assigned the role of having caused gunshot injury to the deceased person or any other person whatsoever. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mathur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Diwakar Tiwari, G.A. Sunita Saxena .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently the statement of star witness Krishna, son of the informant who was also an injured in the incident, was recorded and he has assigned the role of causing gunshot injury to co-accused person Vikas Saxena @ Chhote Kalia. Although, he has subsequently stated that applicant and Sagar had also caused gunshot injury to the deceased person, but the said allegations are false as they do not corroborate to the postmortem report. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the injured person had not sustained any gunshot injury. He has sustained only abrasion and there was a complaint of pain, which does not come within the category of injury. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.2.2025 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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". BAIL No. 28271 of 2025 2 12. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 fact that the role of firing at the deceased person has been assigned to the husband of the applicant Vikas Saxena @ Chhote Kalia and only one gunshot injury has been observed on the body on the deceased person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, 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- Sunita Saxena, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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 pressurize/intimidate 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 7, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28271 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad