State of U.P v. Party

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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. 371 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Gorakhnath, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith co-accused person Himalaya Pandey and about twelve other persons is stated to have assaulted the informant armed with rod, wooden plank on 23.8.2025 at about 06:00 p.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 was instituted by the injured/deceased only and it is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The place of occurrence is admittedly the under construction site, which 2 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 belongs to father of the applicant Himalaya Pandey, and the injuries sustained by the deceased person are three in number only.

7. The injury report indicates that smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the deceased person, which indicates that in an inebriated state he had come to the under construction site of father of the applicant.

8. The applicant himself sustained three injuries in the said incident and one of the said injury is lacerated wound, the another is contusion and the third one is abrasion. The said injuries sustained by the applicant have not been explained by the prosecution. The other accused person Himalaya Pandey, who happens to be father of the applicant, has also sustained six injuries in the incident.

9. Subsequently, the statements of witnesses have been garnered and the applicant has been assigned the role of having hit the deceased person with wooden plank, which was having nails in it. The said injuries sustained by the deceased person, from the wooden plank carried by the applicant, caused the death of the deceased person.

10. The fact that deceased was very much conscious at the time of medical examination and was in a capacity to get the FIR instituted stands falsified from the statement of HM Rajiv Kumar Singh, who went to the hospital the next day and found the deceased person unconscious, as such, the said FIR cannot be termed to be a dying declaration.

11. The deceased person was the aggressor and there being free-fight between the parties, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

29.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is the primary accused person as it was he who had inflicted the said grievous injuries to the body of the deceased person, which led to his death.

13. The deceased person had supplied sand and gravel to the father of the 3 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 applicant for construction of the said house, but the applicant and his father were not paying back the amount due towards them, as such, as a bona fide act the deceased had come to demand money, as such, he cannot be termed to be an aggressor and the place of occurrence being the house of father of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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./State Law Officer 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 the fact that it is admitted to both the parties that two persons from the side of applicant have also sustained injuries and the said injuries go unexplained by the prosecution coupled by the fact that smell of alcohol was observed by the doctor conducting medical examination of the deceased person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima 4 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 faice, 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- Abhishek Pandey, 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.

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. December 10, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as 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. 371 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Gorakhnath, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith co-accused person Himalaya Pandey and about twelve other persons is stated to have assaulted the informant armed with rod, wooden plank on 23.8.2025 at about 06:00 p.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 was instituted by the injured/deceased only and it is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The place of occurrence is admittedly the under construction site, which 2 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 belongs to father of the applicant Himalaya Pandey, and the injuries sustained by the deceased person are three in number only.

7. The injury report indicates that smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of the deceased person, which indicates that in an inebriated state he had come to the under construction site of father of the applicant.

8. The applicant himself sustained three injuries in the said incident and one of the said injury is lacerated wound, the another is contusion and the third one is abrasion. The said injuries sustained by the applicant have not been explained by the prosecution. The other accused person Himalaya Pandey, who happens to be father of the applicant, has also sustained six injuries in the incident.

9. Subsequently, the statements of witnesses have been garnered and the applicant has been assigned the role of having hit the deceased person with wooden plank, which was having nails in it. The said injuries sustained by the deceased person, from the wooden plank carried by the applicant, caused the death of the deceased person.

10. The fact that deceased was very much conscious at the time of medical examination and was in a capacity to get the FIR instituted stands falsified from the statement of HM Rajiv Kumar Singh, who went to the hospital the next day and found the deceased person unconscious, as such, the said FIR cannot be termed to be a dying declaration.

11. The deceased person was the aggressor and there being free-fight between the parties, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since

29.8.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

12. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the applicant is the primary accused person as it was he who had inflicted the said grievous injuries to the body of the deceased person, which led to his death.

13. The deceased person had supplied sand and gravel to the father of the 3 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 applicant for construction of the said house, but the applicant and his father were not paying back the amount due towards them, as such, as a bona fide act the deceased had come to demand money, as such, he cannot be termed to be an aggressor and the place of occurrence being the house of father of the applicant, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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./State Law Officer 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 the fact that it is admitted to both the parties that two persons from the side of applicant have also sustained injuries and the said injuries go unexplained by the prosecution coupled by the fact that smell of alcohol was observed by the doctor conducting medical examination of the deceased person, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima 4 BAIL No. 43658 of 2025 faice, 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- Abhishek Pandey, 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.

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. December 10, 2025 Vikas Verma (Krishan Pahal,J.)