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

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd Hamid, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 110, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) of BNS, Police Station - Ravindra Dhoos, District - Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with eight other co- accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to two persons from the side of the informant in all on 11.7.2025 at about 07:00 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. One of the injured persons has expired and other has sustained grievous injuries.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is a cross-version to the instant case as the FIR No. 121 of 2025 has been instituted from the applicant's side in which three persons including the applicant have 2 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025 sustained injuries. It is argued that the injuries sustained by the applicant and other persons have not been explained by the prosecution. Since there being a cross-version and both sides have sustained injuries, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2025. 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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 thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of 3 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025 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 there is a cross-version and both sides have sustained injuries, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Hariram Rai, 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.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025

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 13, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd Hamid, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 110, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 117(2) of BNS, Police Station - Ravindra Dhoos, District - Kushinagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with eight other co- accused persons is stated to have assaulted and caused injuries to two persons from the side of the informant in all on 11.7.2025 at about 07:00 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. One of the injured persons has expired and other has sustained grievous injuries.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is a cross-version to the instant case as the FIR No. 121 of 2025 has been instituted from the applicant's side in which three persons including the applicant have 2 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025 sustained injuries. It is argued that the injuries sustained by the applicant and other persons have not been explained by the prosecution. Since there being a cross-version and both sides have sustained injuries, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2025. 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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 thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of 3 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025 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 there is a cross-version and both sides have sustained injuries, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Hariram Rai, 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.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 31358 of 2025

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 13, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad