HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31735 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Raja Sahani, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.279 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station- Rudrapur, District- Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicants alongwith three other named accused persons are stated to have assaulted the father of the informant Ram Dayal with fists, kicks, lathi and danda at their agricultural field on 28.7.2025 at about 12:00 p.m., thereby causing grievous injuries to him leading to his death. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have 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. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that the prosecution Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raja Sahani, Richesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Kushwaha, Divya Kushwaha, G.A., Lalit Kumar Srivastava Ramprakash Nishad And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) story also stands falsified from the postmortem report, whereby no visible injury was observed by the doctor conducting postmortem examination of the deceased person, as such, the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera has been preserved. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 30.7.2025 and they are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased person had already filed an application at the police station Kotwali Rudrapur, district Deoria alleging that he has apprehension of being subjected to assault by the applicant and other accused persons, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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 A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances BAIL No. 31735 of 2025 2 which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants. 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 FIR is delayed and no cause of death could be ascertained in the postmortem report and there being general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicants- Ramprakash Nishad and Ramjeet Nishad, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicants 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 applicants 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. 31735 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad