State of U.P v. Party

2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The named accused persons, namely, Jugul Nishad, Pankaj Nishad, Prem Nishad, Surendra Nishad, Indal Nishad, Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad, Santosh Nishad, Anil Nishad and three unknown persons, are stated to have committed the murder of Dinesh Nishad on 07.06.2025 at about 3:00 p.m. on National Highway. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case, rather the named accused person was Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad and the said accused person has been exonerated by the police and instead the applicant, whose parentage is Ramnarayan, has been implicated subsequently. 2 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025

6. Even the final report indicates the parentages of the two Sanjay Nishad. One who was exonerated and the other is the applicant.

7. The name of the applicant has simply been added on the basis of CDR, whereby the applicant was found in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. T he applicant was found talking to mobile no.9768125354 four times at the time of offence, but the ownership of the said mobile no.9768125354 has not been established.

8. The name of the applicant has come up only in his confessional statement, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

9. It is true that it is a broad day light murder, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

10. The co-accused person Vijendra Shahi Alias Bajrangi Shahi has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27648 of 2025.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

12. It is an organized crime committed by the applicant alongwith the co- accused persons.

13. The presence of the applicant stands establishes from the application given by the wife of the applicant to the S.S.P., annexed with the bail application, whereby she has stated that the applicant had gone with the deceased person on a motorcycle and he was chased by the co-accused persons, but he escaped somehow.

14. The another point that has to be taken into consideration is that the applicant did not get injured in the said incident. Even no abrasion has been observed on his body, which indicates his collusion and involvement in the crime.

15. The CDR also establishes the presence of the applicant at the place of 3 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025 occurrence. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

19. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. It is 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the charge-sheet, whereby the name of the applicant has been added instead of Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad and his name has come up in his own statement before the police coupled with the fact that the 4 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025 applicant was found talking to mobile no.9768125354 four times at the time of offence, but the ownership of the said mobile no.9768125354 has not been established, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Sanjay Nishad involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

24. 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 29, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)

2. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rao, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The named accused persons, namely, Jugul Nishad, Pankaj Nishad, Prem Nishad, Surendra Nishad, Indal Nishad, Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad, Santosh Nishad, Anil Nishad and three unknown persons, are stated to have committed the murder of Dinesh Nishad on 07.06.2025 at about 3:00 p.m. on National Highway. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case, rather the named accused person was Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad and the said accused person has been exonerated by the police and instead the applicant, whose parentage is Ramnarayan, has been implicated subsequently. 2 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025

6. Even the final report indicates the parentages of the two Sanjay Nishad. One who was exonerated and the other is the applicant.

7. The name of the applicant has simply been added on the basis of CDR, whereby the applicant was found in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. T he applicant was found talking to mobile no.9768125354 four times at the time of offence, but the ownership of the said mobile no.9768125354 has not been established.

8. The name of the applicant has come up only in his confessional statement, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

9. It is true that it is a broad day light murder, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

10. The co-accused person Vijendra Shahi Alias Bajrangi Shahi has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27648 of 2025.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

12. It is an organized crime committed by the applicant alongwith the co- accused persons.

13. The presence of the applicant stands establishes from the application given by the wife of the applicant to the S.S.P., annexed with the bail application, whereby she has stated that the applicant had gone with the deceased person on a motorcycle and he was chased by the co-accused persons, but he escaped somehow.

14. The another point that has to be taken into consideration is that the applicant did not get injured in the said incident. Even no abrasion has been observed on his body, which indicates his collusion and involvement in the crime.

15. The CDR also establishes the presence of the applicant at the place of 3 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025 occurrence. CONCLUSION:

16. 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.

17. 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 recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

18. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised 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”.

19. Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

20. It is 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 A.G.A./State Law Officer.

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the charge-sheet, whereby the name of the applicant has been added instead of Sanjay Nishad s/o Jhagadu Nishad and his name has come up in his own statement before the police coupled with the fact that the 4 BAIL No. 35861 of 2025 applicant was found talking to mobile no.9768125354 four times at the time of offence, but the ownership of the said mobile no.9768125354 has not been established, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant- Sanjay Nishad involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

23. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

24. 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 29, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.)