Govind Shiva v. State of U.P.). He further submits that out of

Heard Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Govind @ Shiva with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2023, under Sections 304, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasna, District– Gautam Buddha Nagar, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 17.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6186 of 2024 (Govind @ Shiva vs. State of U.P.). He further submits that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, four are witnesses of fact, out of which only one witness has been examined till date. He further submits that there is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. He also contends that the P.W.-1 who has been examined, has also not stated about the involvement of the applicant in the incident. Emphasizing upon the period of detention, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2023. He also contends that the applicant has no criminal history as the same has been averred in paragraph no.25 of the application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away 2 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre- trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 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 he 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 A.G.A. for the State. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the 3 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at 4 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the present bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. September 12, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Surendra Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Govind @ Shiva with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.254 of 2023, under Sections 304, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Kasna, District– Gautam Buddha Nagar, during pendency of trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 17.5.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6186 of 2024 (Govind @ Shiva vs. State of U.P.). He further submits that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, four are witnesses of fact, out of which only one witness has been examined till date. He further submits that there is no chance of conclusion of trial in the near future. He also contends that the P.W.-1 who has been examined, has also not stated about the involvement of the applicant in the incident. Emphasizing upon the period of detention, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2023. He also contends that the applicant has no criminal history as the same has been averred in paragraph no.25 of the application. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away 2 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre- trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. 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 he 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 Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 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 A.G.A. for the State. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accused-applicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the period of detention of the 3 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 applicant for the alleged offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (vii) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing. (viii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at 4 BAIL No. 13766 of 2025 liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the present bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. September 12, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad