HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29391 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharm Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Badan, 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.445 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Maudaha, District- Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have fired and caused gunshot injury to his father alongwith his brother Vinod Singh on 28.10.2024 at about 04:00 p.m. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. As per the postmortem report, only one firearm injury has been observed which was present on the back of the deceased person and it had passed through the front of his chest. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the doctor Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharm Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar, G.A., Shiv Badan Lavkush Singh Alias Akshay Pratap Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) observed blackening around the entry of wound, as such, the place from where the shot was fired could not have been more than 6-8 feet away from the deceased person, while the FIR indicates that applicant had fired from the roof of the house, which is about 25 feet away from place of recovery of dead body, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a blind murder has been converted to a case out of motive as the deceased had conducted second marriage after the death of his first wife, and as such, the property dispute has been converted to criminal one by the informant. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2024 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. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that delay in institution of FIR stands explained from the fact that mother of the deceased person went unconscious after seeing the brutal murder, as such, the informant first tried to pacify her and thereupon went to institute the FIR. 9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 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 reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. BAIL No. 29391 of 2025 2 12. 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". 13. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 14. 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 inconsistency in the ocular evidence to that of the postmortem report, whereby blackening was present around the entry of wound of 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. 15. Let the applicant- Lavkush Singh Alias Akshay Pratap Singh, 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 17. 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 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 29391 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad