State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Hasayan, District - Hathras, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons Rahul, Omveer, Ashok and two unknown persons is stated to have fired and caused gun-shot injuries to the father of the informant, leading him to death at the spot on 04.02.2025 at about 06:00 AM.

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 more than five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 2 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant is not an eye-witness which is but evident from the statement of Dhani Ram, who has categorically stated that the informant was present with him and he was told on mobile by somebody that his father was put to death. The informant hurriedly rushed to the place of occurrence after learning about the death of his father.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant was not an eye- witness and subsequently, two more witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely, Vijay Singh and Shyam Sundar. Their statement have been recorded belatedly after three months of the incident i.e. on

06.05.2025. The said delay in recording the statements of the so-called eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication.

8. Learned counsel has next stated that there is a statement of one Pramod Kumar Singh, who reached the place of occurrence after the incident. He has stated that he was very much present at the place of offence as public at large was gathered there and observed that three gun-shots have been sustained by the deceased person and his bicycle was lying nearby alongwith milk vessels.

9. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the said offence, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2025, 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.

10. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is named in the FIR and even the applicant has been nominated by other two eye-witnesses of the incident. The said statements of Dhani Ram and Pramod Kumar Singh have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in collusion with the accused persons just to help them.

11. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the trial is going on. The statement of the informant P.W. 1 has been recorded in court and he has reiterated the version made in the FIR, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 3 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025

12. 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.

13. 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 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 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).

15. 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".

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions 4 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025 made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statements of Dhani Ram and Pramod Kumar Singh coupled by the statements of eye-witnesses Vijay Singh and Shyam Sunder which have been recorded belatedly i.e. after three months of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Vishal, 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.

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

19. 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 9, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Hasayan, District - Hathras, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused persons Rahul, Omveer, Ashok and two unknown persons is stated to have fired and caused gun-shot injuries to the father of the informant, leading him to death at the spot on 04.02.2025 at about 06:00 AM.

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 more than five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 2 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the informant is not an eye-witness which is but evident from the statement of Dhani Ram, who has categorically stated that the informant was present with him and he was told on mobile by somebody that his father was put to death. The informant hurriedly rushed to the place of occurrence after learning about the death of his father.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant was not an eye- witness and subsequently, two more witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely, Vijay Singh and Shyam Sundar. Their statement have been recorded belatedly after three months of the incident i.e. on

06.05.2025. The said delay in recording the statements of the so-called eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication.

8. Learned counsel has next stated that there is a statement of one Pramod Kumar Singh, who reached the place of occurrence after the incident. He has stated that he was very much present at the place of offence as public at large was gathered there and observed that three gun-shots have been sustained by the deceased person and his bicycle was lying nearby alongwith milk vessels.

9. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the said offence, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2025, 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.

10. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is named in the FIR and even the applicant has been nominated by other two eye-witnesses of the incident. The said statements of Dhani Ram and Pramod Kumar Singh have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in collusion with the accused persons just to help them.

11. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the trial is going on. The statement of the informant P.W. 1 has been recorded in court and he has reiterated the version made in the FIR, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 3 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025

12. 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.

13. 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 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 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).

15. 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".

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions 4 BAIL No. 26906 of 2025 made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the statements of Dhani Ram and Pramod Kumar Singh coupled by the statements of eye-witnesses Vijay Singh and Shyam Sunder which have been recorded belatedly i.e. after three months of the incident, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Vishal, 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.

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

19. 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 9, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad