State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jainendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 103 of BNS, Police Station - Bisalpur, District - Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person Veer Singh is stated to have entered into an altercation over the selling of vegetables on 01.04.2025 at about 06:30 PM and when the informant's son intervened in the said altercation, the applicant and co-accused Veer Singh is stated to have beaten him up badly, causing grievous injuries to him.

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 22 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations.

6. Learned counsel has argued that the injury report indicates three injuries on the body of the deceased person while the postmortem report indicates two injuries, as such, the said inconsistencies speak volume of false implication. Although, one injury was found fatal to the deceased person but 2 BAIL No. 31666 of 2025 the applicant has nothing to do with the said injury.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is stated to have assaulted the deceased person with a weight used to weighing vegetables. It is a clear cut case of sudden provocation. The co-accused person has been assigned the role of having been hit by a rod. The recovery of rod has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused person which also falsifies the prosecution story. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2025, 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the site plan, the place of occurrence and the shop of the applicant is immediately adjacent to each other. The cause of death of deceased person is ante- mortem injuries sustained in the said brawl and the applicant is the author of the said injury, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute 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. 3 BAIL No. 31666 of 2025

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, delay of more than 22 hours in lodging the FIR and it being a case of sudden provocation, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Bharat 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 tfhe 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.

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. October 7, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jainendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Shyam Dhar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 103 of BNS, Police Station - Bisalpur, District - Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with co-accused person Veer Singh is stated to have entered into an altercation over the selling of vegetables on 01.04.2025 at about 06:30 PM and when the informant's son intervened in the said altercation, the applicant and co-accused Veer Singh is stated to have beaten him up badly, causing grievous injuries to him.

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 22 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been lodged as an afterthought and after legal consultations.

6. Learned counsel has argued that the injury report indicates three injuries on the body of the deceased person while the postmortem report indicates two injuries, as such, the said inconsistencies speak volume of false implication. Although, one injury was found fatal to the deceased person but 2 BAIL No. 31666 of 2025 the applicant has nothing to do with the said injury.

7. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant is stated to have assaulted the deceased person with a weight used to weighing vegetables. It is a clear cut case of sudden provocation. The co-accused person has been assigned the role of having been hit by a rod. The recovery of rod has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused person which also falsifies the prosecution story. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2025, 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the site plan, the place of occurrence and the shop of the applicant is immediately adjacent to each other. The cause of death of deceased person is ante- mortem injuries sustained in the said brawl and the applicant is the author of the said injury, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, they could not dispute 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. 3 BAIL No. 31666 of 2025

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, delay of more than 22 hours in lodging the FIR and it being a case of sudden provocation, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Bharat 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 tfhe 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.

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. October 7, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad