State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Pathak, 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. 0103 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 333 & 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Mirapur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have caught hold the deceased person whereby the co-accused Sokindra is stated to have caused gun-shot injury to Mahkar thereby leading him to death on 25.05.2025 at about 10:00 PM.

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

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold only. It was a free fight between the parties over a sudden provocation. The applicant himself has sustained injuries on his head and the said injury has not been explained by the prosecution. It is argued that it is not possible for a person to catch hold of a person for the other to fire at him. The said story cannot be believed. 2 BAIL No. 33061 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is a cross-version to the instant FIR, as such, at this point of time it could not be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. The applicant is languishing in jail since

10.06.2025, 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 the FIR from the applicant's side has been instituted after moving an application u/s 175(3) BNSS which is delayed by about 22 days, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, learned AGA 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.

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. 3 BAIL No. 33061 of 2025 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 in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold and there being a cross-version and the injuries sustained by the applicant have not been explained by the prosecution, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Satpal 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. 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 15, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Pathak, 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. 0103 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 333 & 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Mirapur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have caught hold the deceased person whereby the co-accused Sokindra is stated to have caused gun-shot injury to Mahkar thereby leading him to death on 25.05.2025 at about 10:00 PM.

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

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold only. It was a free fight between the parties over a sudden provocation. The applicant himself has sustained injuries on his head and the said injury has not been explained by the prosecution. It is argued that it is not possible for a person to catch hold of a person for the other to fire at him. The said story cannot be believed. 2 BAIL No. 33061 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has next contended that there is a cross-version to the instant FIR, as such, at this point of time it could not be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. The applicant is languishing in jail since

10.06.2025, 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 the FIR from the applicant's side has been instituted after moving an application u/s 175(3) BNSS which is delayed by about 22 days, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. However, learned AGA 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.

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. 3 BAIL No. 33061 of 2025 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 in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that the applicant has been assigned the role of catching hold and there being a cross-version and the injuries sustained by the applicant have not been explained by the prosecution, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant- Satpal 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. 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 15, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad