The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. And Another

: Raghuvansh Misra, Rishabh Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anoop Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.371 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Abhishek Pandey and Himalaya Pandey are stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the informant on 23.08.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of one of the eye-witnesses Hemant, who is also stated to be an injured in the said incident, who has stated that he came to know that the applicant was also present in the said incident, but he is not sure whether he had seen him.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said statement cannot be also relied on the ground that the said injured Hemant has not sustained any injury whatsoever. There is statement of one eye- 2 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025 witness Santosh Nishad who has stated that the applicant had hit the deceased person with kick and fist, but there is no such injury observed by the doctor conducting the post-mortem of the deceased person. There are three other eye-witnesses, namely, Shyam Dev Nishad, Bajrangi and wife of deceased person Rinki, who have assigned the role of exhortation to the applicant, as such, the prosecution story stands changed from that of statement of injured person and Santosh Nishad.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR was instituted by the injured himself and it was a brutal case as even the eyes of the deceased person were protruding out at the time of medical examination, which is but evident from the post-mortem report also, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

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.

11. 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. 3 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025

12. 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”.

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

14. 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.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even in the statement of the witnesses, the role of the applicant is inconsistent to each other, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Arjun Pandey, 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 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.

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

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant 4 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Raghuvansh Misra, Rishabh Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anoop Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.371 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the named accused persons Abhishek Pandey and Himalaya Pandey are stated to have assaulted and caused grievous injuries to the informant on 23.08.2025 at about 6:00 p.m.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about twenty hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of one of the eye-witnesses Hemant, who is also stated to be an injured in the said incident, who has stated that he came to know that the applicant was also present in the said incident, but he is not sure whether he had seen him.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the said statement cannot be also relied on the ground that the said injured Hemant has not sustained any injury whatsoever. There is statement of one eye- 2 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025 witness Santosh Nishad who has stated that the applicant had hit the deceased person with kick and fist, but there is no such injury observed by the doctor conducting the post-mortem of the deceased person. There are three other eye-witnesses, namely, Shyam Dev Nishad, Bajrangi and wife of deceased person Rinki, who have assigned the role of exhortation to the applicant, as such, the prosecution story stands changed from that of statement of injured person and Santosh Nishad.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR was instituted by the injured himself and it was a brutal case as even the eyes of the deceased person were protruding out at the time of medical examination, which is but evident from the post-mortem report also, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

9. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

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.

11. 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. 3 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025

12. 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”.

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

14. 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.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR and the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even in the statement of the witnesses, the role of the applicant is inconsistent to each other, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant- Arjun Pandey, 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 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.

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

18. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant 4 BAIL No. 36507 of 2025 shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. October 17, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad