High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.238 of 2024, under Sections 105, 191(2), 191(3), 75, 115(2), 352, 131, 117(2), 333 B.N.S., Police Station- Taryasujan, District- Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused person Ramayan Sahani, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43813 of 2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 105, 191(2), 191(3), 75, 115(2), 352, 131, 117(2), 333 B.N.S., Police Station Taryasujan, District Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The grand daughter of the informant was teased and tormented by the named accused person Nikhil and two unknown persons on 15.07.2024 at about 7 p.m. when she had gone out to ease herself out at the agricultural field.

5. Subsequent to it, the family members of the informant were beaten up by the applicant and eight named accused persons along with two unknown persons in the night at the shop whereby father of the informant was also assaulted causing grievous injuries to him and in all four persons have sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to the injuries after a period of more than one month. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

9. Only three injuries have been sustained by the deceased person and the fourth one is healed wound of drain at the right side of illiac fossa.

10. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

11. The statement of the deceased person has wrongly been recorded by the Investigating Officer that too after a delay on 08.08.2024.

12. The said statement does not fall within the category of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased person was under ventilatory support, as such there was no occasion for him to give any statement to the Investigating Officer.

14. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

15. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2024. The applicant 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 INFORMANT :

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

17. 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.

18. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

19. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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".

20. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

21. It is 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 State Law Officer.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

23. Let the applicant- Ramayan Sahani involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. The applicant tamper with evidence. (i) (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

25. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of the applicant is at par with co-accused person Ramayan Sahani. In the statement of the deceased person recorded by the Investigating Officer, it has been stated that it was the applicant who had assaulted him for the first time with his lathi, but there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.8.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was the main perpetrator of the crime. Had he not assaulted the deceased person with lathi at the starting point, the crime would not have been committed. There are four injured persons and three other persons have also levelled general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, but the statement of the deceased person recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. tantamounts to dying declaration as he has succumbed to the injuries sustained subsequently. The deceased had expired on 19.8.2024.

8. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application.

9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of the deceased person does not tantamount to dying declaration as his statement was recorded at a very belated stage, i.e. on 8.8.2024 and he has expired after about eleven days of the said recording of his statement. As such, the said statement is not covered by Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act.

10. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in recording the statement of the deceased person and also the time lapse between the recording of his statement and his death and also in light of the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, 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.

12. Let the applicant- Dashrath Sahni, 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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

14. 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. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.238 of 2024, under Sections 105, 191(2), 191(3), 75, 115(2), 352, 131, 117(2), 333 B.N.S., Police Station- Taryasujan, District- Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co- accused person Ramayan Sahani, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43813 of 2024 and the following order was passed:- "1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned State Law Officer and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 105, 191(2), 191(3), 75, 115(2), 352, 131, 117(2), 333 B.N.S., Police Station Taryasujan, District Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The grand daughter of the informant was teased and tormented by the named accused person Nikhil and two unknown persons on 15.07.2024 at about 7 p.m. when she had gone out to ease herself out at the agricultural field.

5. Subsequent to it, the family members of the informant were beaten up by the applicant and eight named accused persons along with two unknown persons in the night at the shop whereby father of the informant was also assaulted causing grievous injuries to him and in all four persons have sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to the injuries after a period of more than one month. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :

6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The FIR is delayed by about five days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant.

9. Only three injuries have been sustained by the deceased person and the fourth one is healed wound of drain at the right side of illiac fossa.

10. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

11. The statement of the deceased person has wrongly been recorded by the Investigating Officer that too after a delay on 08.08.2024.

12. The said statement does not fall within the category of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

13. It is an admitted fact that the deceased person was under ventilatory support, as such there was no occasion for him to give any statement to the Investigating Officer.

14. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

15. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.08.2024. The applicant 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 INFORMANT :

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

17. 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.

18. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

19. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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".

20. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

21. It is 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 State Law Officer.

22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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.

23. Let the applicant- Ramayan Sahani involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. The applicant tamper with evidence. (i) (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

24. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

25. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of the applicant is at par with co-accused person Ramayan Sahani. In the statement of the deceased person recorded by the Investigating Officer, it has been stated that it was the applicant who had assaulted him for the first time with his lathi, but there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

6. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.8.2024. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was the main perpetrator of the crime. Had he not assaulted the deceased person with lathi at the starting point, the crime would not have been committed. There are four injured persons and three other persons have also levelled general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, but the statement of the deceased person recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. tantamounts to dying declaration as he has succumbed to the injuries sustained subsequently. The deceased had expired on 19.8.2024.

8. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application.

9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of the deceased person does not tantamount to dying declaration as his statement was recorded at a very belated stage, i.e. on 8.8.2024 and he has expired after about eleven days of the said recording of his statement. As such, the said statement is not covered by Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act.

10. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in recording the statement of the deceased person and also the time lapse between the recording of his statement and his death and also in light of the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, 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.

12. Let the applicant- Dashrath Sahni, 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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

14. 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. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad