HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30132 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Bijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Kheeri, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith three other co-accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to Sushil and Anil, whereby Sushil succumbed to the injuries sustained about seven days after the incident. The occurrence is of 27.07.2025 at about 7:00 a.m. 6. 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 seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused person. There is a cross-version to the instant case as the co-accused person Prabhakar has also sustained injuries in the case and N.C.R. No.67 of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bijay Kumar Srivastava, Devendra Kumar Bind, Zainab Parveen Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Himanshu Kushwaha, Prashant Mishra, Premendra Kumar Buddhiman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 2025 was instituted against the informant and other family members on 27.07.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there being a cross-version, at this point of time it cannot be ascertained at to which party was the aggressor one. The injury sustained by one of the accused person Prabhakar has not been explained by the prosecution. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.07.2025 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 and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 11. 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”. 12. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 13. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the BAIL No. 30132 of 2025 2 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. 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 delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the injury sustained by the accused person Prabhakar has not been explained, 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. 15. Let the applicant- Buddhiman, 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. 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 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 30132 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad