State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 497 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Anupshahar, District - Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his sons Gaurav, Saurabh and Balesh is stated to have assaulted and caused gun shot injuries to informant's father on 18.12.2024 at about 05:00 PM. In the said incident, one Pratap is also stated to have sustained gun-shot injury.

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

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant and his sons have been assigned the role of causing gun-shot injuries to deceased person. It is argued that the deceased person has sustained two gun-shot injuries and one gun-shot injury was sustained by Pratap, as such, at this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to who fired at deceased person and who fired at 2 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 Pratap.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the statements of two witnesses, namely, Ravi Singh and Sarjit were recorded subsequently and they have assigned the role of causing the said gun shot injury to co-accused Gaurav only. They have also stated that the applicant and the co-accused person Saurabh also sustained injuries in the said scuffle. It is categorically stated in their statements that the deceased person had hit the applicant with sharp- edged weapon farsa.

8. Learned counsel has next contended that the injuries sustained by the applicant and co-accused persons have not been properly explained by the prosecution. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024, 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.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant has tried to institute a cross-case by moving the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication of the applicant along with his sons having committed the said offence.

10. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the medical reports of the applicant and co-accused Saurabh have been subsequently prepared as their medical examination has been conducted on 20.12.2024 i.e. two days after the incident and it is not known as to where the said accused persons got the treatment done, as such, the said injuries cannot be believed.

11. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

12. 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 3 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 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.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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".

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that two injured persons have assigned the role of causing gun-shot injuries to applicant's son Gaurav, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. The case of applicant stands distinguished to the case of main accused Gaurav.

17. Let the applicant- Mahesh 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. 4 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

19. 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 15, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 497 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 103(1), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Anupshahar, District - Bulandshahar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with his sons Gaurav, Saurabh and Balesh is stated to have assaulted and caused gun shot injuries to informant's father on 18.12.2024 at about 05:00 PM. In the said incident, one Pratap is also stated to have sustained gun-shot injury.

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

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant and his sons have been assigned the role of causing gun-shot injuries to deceased person. It is argued that the deceased person has sustained two gun-shot injuries and one gun-shot injury was sustained by Pratap, as such, at this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to who fired at deceased person and who fired at 2 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 Pratap.

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the statements of two witnesses, namely, Ravi Singh and Sarjit were recorded subsequently and they have assigned the role of causing the said gun shot injury to co-accused Gaurav only. They have also stated that the applicant and the co-accused person Saurabh also sustained injuries in the said scuffle. It is categorically stated in their statements that the deceased person had hit the applicant with sharp- edged weapon farsa.

8. Learned counsel has next contended that the injuries sustained by the applicant and co-accused persons have not been properly explained by the prosecution. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.12.2024, 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.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the informant has tried to institute a cross-case by moving the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication of the applicant along with his sons having committed the said offence.

10. Learned counsel for the informant has also argued that the medical reports of the applicant and co-accused Saurabh have been subsequently prepared as their medical examination has been conducted on 20.12.2024 i.e. two days after the incident and it is not known as to where the said accused persons got the treatment done, as such, the said injuries cannot be believed.

11. Learned AGA has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

12. 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 3 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 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.

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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".

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that two injured persons have assigned the role of causing gun-shot injuries to applicant's son Gaurav, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. The case of applicant stands distinguished to the case of main accused Gaurav.

17. Let the applicant- Mahesh 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. 4 BAIL No. 31866 of 2025 ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

19. 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 15, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad