State of U.P. vs Party(s)

2. Heard Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 173 of 2025, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Uttar, District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co-accused persons is stated to have deliberately collided his car Kia No. 9888 to the motorcycle of informant's son Shivam on 1.4.2025 at about 09:45 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 14 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the information was sent to the police by some unknown person whereby it was mentioned that a person has expired in a motorcycle accident. The said fact stands mentioned in the inquest proceedings which completes before the institution of FIR. Subsequently, the FIR has been instituted out of vengeance. 2 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the CCTV footage has been fetched by the Investigating Officer whereby the applicant is seen following the motorcycle of the deceased person in a car but it does not imply that the applicant had deliberately collided his car to his motorcycle to cause his death. The case of rash and negligent driving has been converted into culpable homicide.

8. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant himself has sustained and it was found in an inebriated stage. The mens rea in committing the said offence is absent in the instant case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.4.2025, 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.

9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the actus reus was there as the applicant has acted in such a manner that he in an inebriated stage collided his car with the motorcycle of informant's son. There are eye-witnesses, who had seen the applicant crushing the deceased person. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

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 3 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025 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.

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, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Yogendra Kumar, who involved 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 4 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025 for cancellation of bail.

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 Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and 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. 173 of 2025, under Section 103(1) of BNS, Police Station - Uttar, District - Firozabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the applicant along with other co-accused persons is stated to have deliberately collided his car Kia No. 9888 to the motorcycle of informant's son Shivam on 1.4.2025 at about 09:45 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 14 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. Learned counsel has also stated that the information was sent to the police by some unknown person whereby it was mentioned that a person has expired in a motorcycle accident. The said fact stands mentioned in the inquest proceedings which completes before the institution of FIR. Subsequently, the FIR has been instituted out of vengeance. 2 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the CCTV footage has been fetched by the Investigating Officer whereby the applicant is seen following the motorcycle of the deceased person in a car but it does not imply that the applicant had deliberately collided his car to his motorcycle to cause his death. The case of rash and negligent driving has been converted into culpable homicide.

8. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant himself has sustained and it was found in an inebriated stage. The mens rea in committing the said offence is absent in the instant case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.4.2025, 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.

9. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the actus reus was there as the applicant has acted in such a manner that he in an inebriated stage collided his car with the motorcycle of informant's son. There are eye-witnesses, who had seen the applicant crushing the deceased person. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

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 3 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025 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.

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, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the fact that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

15. Let the applicant- Yogendra Kumar, who involved 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 4 BAIL No. 35046 of 2025 for cancellation of bail.

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