In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Singh, 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. 0123 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station - Phephana, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co- accused person Roshan Singh, who has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court but he has stated that the only difference is that the location of the applicant's mobile was found in the same village within the tower covering the said village.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the statement of one Dev Nath was recorded 24 days after the incident and he has stated that the applicant along with his brother Roshan Singh and three other co-accused persons were seen on motorcycles going towards the place of occurrence in the night of the incident. The said allegations are per se false.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the 2 BAIL No. 26979 of 2025 said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in the affidavit filed along with bail application He is languishing in jail since 23.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant switched off his mobile phone at 07:50 PM and was found present within the vicinity of the village Aundh, district Ballia, as such, his complicity was established in the instant case.

8. On being enquired from learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant, they could not provide the details of the coordinates of the applicant's mobile at the relevant point of time.

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. 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.

11. 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. 26979 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.

12. 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).

13. 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".

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the case of the applicant is almost at par with the co-accused person coupled by the fact that the applicant's mobile location cannot infer that he was present at the place of occurrence and also taking into consideration the fact that the FIR itself was instituted under suspicion that the applicant and the co-accused were committed the said offence, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Rajesh Singh, 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. 4 BAIL No. 26979 of 2025 iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

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

2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Singh, 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. 0123 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 103(1), 61(2) of BNS, Police Station - Phephana, District - Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co- accused person Roshan Singh, who has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court but he has stated that the only difference is that the location of the applicant's mobile was found in the same village within the tower covering the said village.

5. Learned counsel has further stated that the statement of one Dev Nath was recorded 24 days after the incident and he has stated that the applicant along with his brother Roshan Singh and three other co-accused persons were seen on motorcycles going towards the place of occurrence in the night of the incident. The said allegations are per se false.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the 2 BAIL No. 26979 of 2025 said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in the affidavit filed along with bail application He is languishing in jail since 23.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant switched off his mobile phone at 07:50 PM and was found present within the vicinity of the village Aundh, district Ballia, as such, his complicity was established in the instant case.

8. On being enquired from learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant, they could not provide the details of the coordinates of the applicant's mobile at the relevant point of time.

9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

10. 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.

11. 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. 26979 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.

12. 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).

13. 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".

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the case of the applicant is almost at par with the co-accused person coupled by the fact that the applicant's mobile location cannot infer that he was present at the place of occurrence and also taking into consideration the fact that the FIR itself was instituted under suspicion that the applicant and the co-accused were committed the said offence, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Rajesh Singh, 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. 4 BAIL No. 26979 of 2025 iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

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