Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) & 352 of BNS, Police Station - Karchhana, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with eight other named co- accused persons is stated to have assaulted with fawda, lathi & danda and caused grievous injuries to the informant's son Raju on 15.03.2025 at about 11:30 PM thereby led him to death.

5. Learned 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 is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has stated that it is a blind murder case as the applicant and other co-accused persons have been nominated subsequently in the said case. The other co-accused persons are the relatives of the applicant and they had gathered at his house on account of a mourning in the family. The postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as only one injury has been observed on the vital part of the body i.e. his cranium which led to fracture on his occipital bone. 2 BAIL No. 31618 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has argued that the statement of one eye-witness has been roped in subsequently, who has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased person to the applicant only but the said role has been assigned after legal consultations. The FIR indicates general role to all the accused persons. Even otherwise there are only five injuries sustained by the injured person while the assailants are nine in number. The other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court on different dates.

8. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025, 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 AGA has 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 AGA 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 AGA.

12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 3 BAIL No. 31618 of 2025 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, delay in lodging the FIR and there being only one injury on the vital part of the body, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Karan 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 tfhe court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, 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 7, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) & 352 of BNS, Police Station - Karchhana, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with eight other named co- accused persons is stated to have assaulted with fawda, lathi & danda and caused grievous injuries to the informant's son Raju on 15.03.2025 at about 11:30 PM thereby led him to death.

5. Learned 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 is delayed by about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has stated that it is a blind murder case as the applicant and other co-accused persons have been nominated subsequently in the said case. The other co-accused persons are the relatives of the applicant and they had gathered at his house on account of a mourning in the family. The postmortem report does not corroborate the prosecution story as only one injury has been observed on the vital part of the body i.e. his cranium which led to fracture on his occipital bone. 2 BAIL No. 31618 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has argued that the statement of one eye-witness has been roped in subsequently, who has assigned the role of assaulting the deceased person to the applicant only but the said role has been assigned after legal consultations. The FIR indicates general role to all the accused persons. Even otherwise there are only five injuries sustained by the injured person while the assailants are nine in number. The other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court on different dates.

8. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025, 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 AGA has 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 AGA 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 AGA.

12. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 3 BAIL No. 31618 of 2025 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, delay in lodging the FIR and there being only one injury on the vital part of the body, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Karan 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 tfhe court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, 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 7, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.)