HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30141 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Singh Yadava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109, 352, 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Narhi, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with three other named accused persons is stated to have assaulted and committed murder of Golu Verma and Prashant Gupta armed with axe and dao (single-edged chinese sword) on 01.01.2025 between 7-8 PM. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by about four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. It is obvious that the informant is not an eye-witness to the incident as he is not sure about the time of offence. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Shashi Dhar Goswami, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Singh Yadava Priyanshu Rai .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that there is no inkling or whispering of any other injured person in the FIR while subsequently it has come up after 17 days that one Jeetu was also injured. The said injured Jeetu has stated that the applicant along with Bittu Yadav and Rudresh Rai had caught hold of the deceased person whereby the main accused person Shivam Rai had assaulted him with an axe and causing injuries to him along with the deceased persons. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold only and the role of assault to the deceased person has been assigned to co-accused Shivam Rai, as such, the case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of co-accused Shivam Rai. It is also argued that the recording of statement of witness after 17 days itself speaks volume of false implication, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2025, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 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. 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. Learned State BAIL No. 30141 of 2025 2 Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 11. It is a 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 State Law Officer. 12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356; K. N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830; Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re. (2017) 10 SCC 658; State Of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447; and Ashim vs. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695). 13. 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". 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the role assigned to the applicant of having catching hold the deceased person and the injured person only, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. The case of co-accused Shivam Rai, who has been assigned the role of assault to the deceased person, stands distinguished. 15. Let the applicant- Priyanshu Rai, 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, BAIL No. 30141 of 2025 3 the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will 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 Siddhant BAIL No. 30141 of 2025 4 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad