High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Ram Kirshna Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025, under Sections 281, 105, 125A B.N.S., Police Station- Rewati, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have driven a tractor without any number in a rash and negligent way and caused the death of the son of the informant by crushing his head on 20.01.2025 at about 11:00 AM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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 about two hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Initially the FIR was instituted regarding rash and negligent act of driving, but subsequently the allegations have been escalated to that of culpable homicide as the applicant is stated to have deliberately crushed the head of deceased person.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the motive has been created later on as it is stated that two days prior to the said incident, the applicant and the deceased person had an altercation over grazing of goat. The said allegations are per se false. Subsequently, another eye witness has been created, namely, Aman Yadav who had stated that he also sustained injuries in the said incident. It is further argued that the said injured witness cannot be believed as the medical examination was conducted after four days.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that motive stands proved as it was due to grazing of goat and the applicant and the deceased had an altercation and out of resentment applicant had committed the said offence, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.

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.

10. 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.

11. 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”.

12. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

13. 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 AGA.

14. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that informant did not whispered a single word about the deliberate act of the applicant of having put his son to death and initially it was mentioned in the FIR that it was a rash and negligent driving of the applicant which led to said act 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.

16. Let the applicant- Pankaj Yadav, 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.

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

18. 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 :- 8.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ram Kirshna Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025, under Sections 281, 105, 125A B.N.S., Police Station- Rewati, District- Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have driven a tractor without any number in a rash and negligent way and caused the death of the son of the informant by crushing his head on 20.01.2025 at about 11:00 AM.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 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 about two hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Initially the FIR was instituted regarding rash and negligent act of driving, but subsequently the allegations have been escalated to that of culpable homicide as the applicant is stated to have deliberately crushed the head of deceased person.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the motive has been created later on as it is stated that two days prior to the said incident, the applicant and the deceased person had an altercation over grazing of goat. The said allegations are per se false. Subsequently, another eye witness has been created, namely, Aman Yadav who had stated that he also sustained injuries in the said incident. It is further argued that the said injured witness cannot be believed as the medical examination was conducted after four days.

7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that motive stands proved as it was due to grazing of goat and the applicant and the deceased had an altercation and out of resentment applicant had committed the said offence, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.

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.

10. 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.

11. 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”.

12. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

13. 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 AGA.

14. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If the conditions in the special statute for the grant of bail are met, then bail should be granted.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the fact that informant did not whispered a single word about the deliberate act of the applicant of having put his son to death and initially it was mentioned in the FIR that it was a rash and negligent driving of the applicant which led to said act 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.

16. Let the applicant- Pankaj Yadav, 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.

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

18. 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 :- 8.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad