Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.788 of 2024, under Sections 190, 191(3), 352, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Powayan, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith five other accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the brother of the informant Manoj Kumar armed with lathi-danda and also by fists and kicks on 16.11.2024 at about 10:00 a.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. 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 is delayed by more than thirteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and the deceased person had sustained only one injury on his vital part of the 2 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025 body i.e. his cranium and the other injury is abrasion as per the injury report prepared at PHC, Powayan, Shahjahanpur.

7. Reliance has been placed on the inquest report of the deceased person, whereby the Investigating Officer had observed only two injuries on the body of the deceased person, which also corroborates the injury report prepared promptly after the incident i.e. on 16.11.2024 at about 11:05 a.m.

8. The postmortem report of the deceased person does indicate several other marks of injury, but they may be caused at the time of resuscitation as fracture was observed in the rib cage of the deceased person also and the cause of death was due to the injury sustained on the cranium of the injured person.

9. The doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased person has stated that cause of death was due to shock and coma as a result of antemortem head injury.

10. It is true that bail application of co-accused person Ramladaite has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but at that time the injury report and autopsy report of the deceased person were not placed on record, as such, the said bail application was rejected on account of nine injuries observed on the body of the deceased person by the doctor concerned.

11. Subsequent to the said bail rejection order dated 28.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3637 of 2025, other co-accused persons, namely, Ajeet Kumar and Dinesh Kumar have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 9.9.2025 and 28.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27610 of 2025 and 21431 of 2025, respectively, and the case of applicant is at par with the said two co- accused persons.

12. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 3 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025

13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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".

17. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that case of applicant is at par with co-accused persons Ajeet Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, who have already been enlarged on bail, and also as far as parity is concerned it cannot be taken into account regarding rejection of bail of any co-accused person, 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.

19. Let the applicant- Vinod Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two 4 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025 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.

20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

21. 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 (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.788 of 2024, under Sections 190, 191(3), 352, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Powayan, District- Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith five other accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the brother of the informant Manoj Kumar armed with lathi-danda and also by fists and kicks on 16.11.2024 at about 10:00 a.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. 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 is delayed by more than thirteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons and the deceased person had sustained only one injury on his vital part of the 2 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025 body i.e. his cranium and the other injury is abrasion as per the injury report prepared at PHC, Powayan, Shahjahanpur.

7. Reliance has been placed on the inquest report of the deceased person, whereby the Investigating Officer had observed only two injuries on the body of the deceased person, which also corroborates the injury report prepared promptly after the incident i.e. on 16.11.2024 at about 11:05 a.m.

8. The postmortem report of the deceased person does indicate several other marks of injury, but they may be caused at the time of resuscitation as fracture was observed in the rib cage of the deceased person also and the cause of death was due to the injury sustained on the cranium of the injured person.

9. The doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased person has stated that cause of death was due to shock and coma as a result of antemortem head injury.

10. It is true that bail application of co-accused person Ramladaite has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but at that time the injury report and autopsy report of the deceased person were not placed on record, as such, the said bail application was rejected on account of nine injuries observed on the body of the deceased person by the doctor concerned.

11. Subsequent to the said bail rejection order dated 28.2.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3637 of 2025, other co-accused persons, namely, Ajeet Kumar and Dinesh Kumar have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 9.9.2025 and 28.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27610 of 2025 and 21431 of 2025, respectively, and the case of applicant is at par with the said two co- accused persons.

12. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 3 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025

13. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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".

17. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration that case of applicant is at par with co-accused persons Ajeet Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, who have already been enlarged on bail, and also as far as parity is concerned it cannot be taken into account regarding rejection of bail of any co-accused person, 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.

19. Let the applicant- Vinod Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two 4 BAIL No. 31785 of 2025 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.

20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

21. 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 (Krishan Pahal,J.)