State of U.P. and Another v. Party

2. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akash Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, 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.467 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baldev, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith five other named accused persons and two unknown persons are stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of brother of the informant on 31.10.2022 at about 2:00 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The investigation was taken up and after thorough investigation, the police was pleased to file a closure report against all the accused person including the applicant. 2 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025

7. As per the statement of the witnesses and the FIR itself, the applicant and co-accused persons Dharnidhar and Mukesh have been assigned the role of having carried axe in their hands.

8. No injury sustained by the deceased person seems to have been caused by an axe as the post-mortem report indicates that the deceased had sustained one lacerated wound on right thigh 13 cm above right knee and he had also sustained one lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm just above knee joint and the third injury was an abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right leg, 2 cm below knee joint, as such, all the injuries were in the very same area.

9. The doctors conducting the post-mortem examination have stated that the deceased might have expired due to excessive bleeding as the injured person has sustained injury in his thigh as well as in his spleen. The said spleen might have been ruptured on being hit by an animal.

10. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the deceased person did not die an instantaneous death, rather he expired due to excessive bleeding sustained in his leg and as well as spleen.

11. None of the said injuries seem to have been caused by any sharp edged weapon, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified as far as the applicant is concerned.

12. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as earlier on the mother of the applicant had instituted FIR No.248 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B and 307 I.P.C. at the same police station. The naming of the applicant in the instant FIR is a counterblast to the said FIR instituted by the mother of the applicant.

13. The star witness Santosh Kumar Pandey was examined and he has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but subsequently in his supplementary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he has denied having seen the incident, rather has stated that he has been falsely made a witness by the informant.

14. Much reliance has been placed on the FSL report, whereby it has been opined that the trouser of the deceased person was found torn in a way that it 3 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 might have been entangled being barred wire on the boundary of agricultural field and the deceased had sustained injuries near the tube-well and had subsequently climbed the first floor to save his life and his dead body was found upstairs on the first floor.

15. The cognizance by the court concerned has been taken against the applicant and three other co-accused persons of the six named accused persons.

16. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.05.2025 and 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/INFORMANT:

17. The very same FSL report indicates that the injury to the right thigh of the deceased person might have been caused by some sharp edged weapon and the direction of the said injury was from lower side to upper side, as such, the weapon assigned to the applicant may have caused injury to the deceased person. IN REBUTTAL:

18. The axe was assigned to three accused persons, while the injury sustained, as opined in the FSL report, is only one to have been sustained by a sharp edged weapon, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to who is the author of the said injury. CONCLUSION:

19. 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.

20. 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 4 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 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.

21. 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”.

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

23. 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./State Law Officer.

24. 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 the applicant was exonerated by the police and there are anomalies in the post-mortem report to the prosecution story, 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.

25. Let the applicant- Dayashankar 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

26. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for 5 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

27. 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 14, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akash Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, 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.467 of 2022, under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baldev, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant alongwith five other named accused persons and two unknown persons are stated to have assaulted and committed the murder of brother of the informant on 31.10.2022 at about 2:00 p.m. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. The investigation was taken up and after thorough investigation, the police was pleased to file a closure report against all the accused person including the applicant. 2 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025

7. As per the statement of the witnesses and the FIR itself, the applicant and co-accused persons Dharnidhar and Mukesh have been assigned the role of having carried axe in their hands.

8. No injury sustained by the deceased person seems to have been caused by an axe as the post-mortem report indicates that the deceased had sustained one lacerated wound on right thigh 13 cm above right knee and he had also sustained one lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm just above knee joint and the third injury was an abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on right leg, 2 cm below knee joint, as such, all the injuries were in the very same area.

9. The doctors conducting the post-mortem examination have stated that the deceased might have expired due to excessive bleeding as the injured person has sustained injury in his thigh as well as in his spleen. The said spleen might have been ruptured on being hit by an animal.

10. The prosecution story stands falsified from the fact that the deceased person did not die an instantaneous death, rather he expired due to excessive bleeding sustained in his leg and as well as spleen.

11. None of the said injuries seem to have been caused by any sharp edged weapon, as such, the prosecution story stands falsified as far as the applicant is concerned.

12. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as earlier on the mother of the applicant had instituted FIR No.248 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B and 307 I.P.C. at the same police station. The naming of the applicant in the instant FIR is a counterblast to the said FIR instituted by the mother of the applicant.

13. The star witness Santosh Kumar Pandey was examined and he has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but subsequently in his supplementary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he has denied having seen the incident, rather has stated that he has been falsely made a witness by the informant.

14. Much reliance has been placed on the FSL report, whereby it has been opined that the trouser of the deceased person was found torn in a way that it 3 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 might have been entangled being barred wire on the boundary of agricultural field and the deceased had sustained injuries near the tube-well and had subsequently climbed the first floor to save his life and his dead body was found upstairs on the first floor.

15. The cognizance by the court concerned has been taken against the applicant and three other co-accused persons of the six named accused persons.

16. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.05.2025 and 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/INFORMANT:

17. The very same FSL report indicates that the injury to the right thigh of the deceased person might have been caused by some sharp edged weapon and the direction of the said injury was from lower side to upper side, as such, the weapon assigned to the applicant may have caused injury to the deceased person. IN REBUTTAL:

18. The axe was assigned to three accused persons, while the injury sustained, as opined in the FSL report, is only one to have been sustained by a sharp edged weapon, as such, it cannot be ascertained as to who is the author of the said injury. CONCLUSION:

19. 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.

20. 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 4 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 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.

21. 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”.

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

23. 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./State Law Officer.

24. 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 the applicant was exonerated by the police and there are anomalies in the post-mortem report to the prosecution story, 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.

25. Let the applicant- Dayashankar 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. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

26. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for 5 BAIL No. 22158 of 2025 cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

27. 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 14, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad