State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jata Shankar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 333, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Kakrauli, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with three other co-accused persons is stated to have barged into the house of the applicant on

15.04.2025 at about 08:15 PM and started assaulting Vinod. After hearing the shrieks, the husband of the informant and the father-in-law rushed to save Vinod but both were assaulted by lathi, danda and iron rod by all the accused persons, causing grievous injuries to them.

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 nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the injuries sustained to one of the injured person are simple in nature while the injuries sustained by the deceased person are also not on vital organ except one injury which was on his cranium and led to his death. There are general and omnibus allegations 2 BAIL No. 28420 of 2025 against all the accused persons but subsequently a danda has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be neurogenic shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.04.2025, 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 counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also 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 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

2. Heard Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jata Shankar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 333, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Kakrauli, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with three other co-accused persons is stated to have barged into the house of the applicant on

15.04.2025 at about 08:15 PM and started assaulting Vinod. After hearing the shrieks, the husband of the informant and the father-in-law rushed to save Vinod but both were assaulted by lathi, danda and iron rod by all the accused persons, causing grievous injuries to them.

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 nine hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the injuries sustained to one of the injured person are simple in nature while the injuries sustained by the deceased person are also not on vital organ except one injury which was on his cranium and led to his death. There are general and omnibus allegations 2 BAIL No. 28420 of 2025 against all the accused persons but subsequently a danda has been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be neurogenic shock as a result of ante-mortem head injury. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.04.2025, 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 counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also 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 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