State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Fazal Kareem Zafari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2025, under Sections 103(2) & 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Sandeepanghat, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with five other named accused persons and about 2-3 unknown persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the informant's son on 17.3.2025 at about 09:50 AM, thereby leading 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 four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. No particular overt act has 2 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 been assigned to any person to be the author of the injury. The cause of death of deceased is due to head injury. The other injuries are not on vital parts of the body. It is true that the deceased has sustained seven injuries in all but at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to who was the author of the said fatal injury caused to the deceased person which is on his cranium.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.3.2025, 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.

8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a recovery of weapon used in the offence at the joint pointing out of the applicant and the co-accused person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

9. 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.

10. 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 3 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 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.

11. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Rajendra Kushwaha, 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 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.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground 4 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 for cancellation of bail.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

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 13, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vidit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Fazal Kareem Zafari, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2025, under Sections 103(2) & 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Sandeepanghat, District - Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with five other named accused persons and about 2-3 unknown persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to the informant's son on 17.3.2025 at about 09:50 AM, thereby leading 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 four hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. No particular overt act has 2 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 been assigned to any person to be the author of the injury. The cause of death of deceased is due to head injury. The other injuries are not on vital parts of the body. It is true that the deceased has sustained seven injuries in all but at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to who was the author of the said fatal injury caused to the deceased person which is on his cranium.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.3.2025, 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.

8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a recovery of weapon used in the offence at the joint pointing out of the applicant and the co-accused person, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

9. 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.

10. 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 3 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 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.

11. The said viewpoint was shared in Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi v. King-Emperor AIR 1924 Cal 476; Emperor v. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and also considering the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Rajendra Kushwaha, 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 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.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground 4 BAIL No. 22586 of 2025 for cancellation of bail.

16. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

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 13, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad