HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32805 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ghan Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.246 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125 B.N.S., Police Station- Mehandawal, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, nine named accused persons and some 20-25 unknown persons are stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to five persons in all of which one had expired at the spot. The other four persons were treated by the doctors concerned. 5. Learned 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 itself is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up for the first time in the statement of informant recorded U/s 180 BNSS as an afterthought. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. As such, the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar, Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ghan Shyam Yadav Deepak Nishad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is entitled for bail. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.6.2025 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that bail application of three more co-accused persons is pending before this Court and all the bail applications may be decided alongwith each other. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that it is a crime of highest order as all the five injured persons including one deceased had sustained grievous injuries on their vital organs. 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". 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 BAIL No. 32805 of 2025 2 by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up in the statement of informant itself subsequently coupled with the fact that FIR is delayed, 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- Deepak Nishad, 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. 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. 32805 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad