State of U.P. vs Party(s)

: Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate : G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 186 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 223 of BNS and Sections 11/12 of U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the veterinary doctor employed at Meerut and was given an additional charge of the Gosala whereby after perusal of the stock register, several anomalies were observed and it was not found maintained properly.

5. Learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned for the applicant has argued that the said Gosala was meant for keeping 1100 animals belonging to cow progeny only but there was 2500 animals stashed in it. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He was helpless under the pressure of the authorities.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that In-charge Nagar Swasthya Adhikari had written a letter to the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut 2 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025 on 31.03.2025 highlighting the Gosala's maintenance issues, including the need for a cement floor to prevent water and urine accumulation, as well as broken water reservoirs and feeding areas.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has next contended that the applicant, a veterinary doctor tasked with treating animals, was unfairly given additional charge of the Gosala and later made a scapegoat despite requesting to relinquish the charge. Furthermore, the responsibility for maintaining the stock register lies with the Gosala staff, not the applicant. The applicant is a government employee and is languishing in jail since

22.07.2025, 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. The applicant is not a flight risk, as he is not likely to abscond.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has 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 3 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025 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 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the status of the applicant in the department being veterinary doctor and having been entrusted the additional charge of the said Gosala, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Dr Harpal Singh, who involved 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.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025

16. 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. September 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate : G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 186 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 223 of BNS and Sections 11/12 of U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to be the veterinary doctor employed at Meerut and was given an additional charge of the Gosala whereby after perusal of the stock register, several anomalies were observed and it was not found maintained properly.

5. Learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned for the applicant has argued that the said Gosala was meant for keeping 1100 animals belonging to cow progeny only but there was 2500 animals stashed in it. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He was helpless under the pressure of the authorities.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also stated that In-charge Nagar Swasthya Adhikari had written a letter to the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Meerut 2 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025 on 31.03.2025 highlighting the Gosala's maintenance issues, including the need for a cement floor to prevent water and urine accumulation, as well as broken water reservoirs and feeding areas.

7. Learned Senior Counsel has next contended that the applicant, a veterinary doctor tasked with treating animals, was unfairly given additional charge of the Gosala and later made a scapegoat despite requesting to relinquish the charge. Furthermore, the responsibility for maintaining the stock register lies with the Gosala staff, not the applicant. The applicant is a government employee and is languishing in jail since

22.07.2025, 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. The applicant is not a flight risk, as he is not likely to abscond.

8. Per contra, learned AGA has 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 3 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025 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 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).

12. 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".

13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and also considering the status of the applicant in the department being veterinary doctor and having been entrusted the additional charge of the said Gosala, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Dr Harpal Singh, who involved 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.

15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 30047 of 2025

16. 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. September 17, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad