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

3. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25(1-B)(a), 27(1) Arms Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons Harvesh Kumar @ Harsh Yadav and Sachin is stated to have fired at the deceased person, causing gunshot injury to him, thereby leading to his death over an altercation which ensued over supply of milk, whereby the brother-in-law Neeraj, a villager Umesh and other persons are stated to have seen the occurrence and the informant herself rushed the deceased to hospital, where he was declared dead on 23.04.2025 at about 10:00 a.m.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. In this particular case, the delay is fatal to the prosecution as the police station was only two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. The prosecution story further stands falsified from G.D. no.27 entered at 10:45 a.m. on the 2 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 date of occurrence i.e. 23.04.2025 itself, which mentions that Head Constable Deepak Kumar and one villager Manoj rushed the deceased to hospital, while the FIR indicates that it was the informant herself who rushed him to hospital.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there were general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR and the deceased person has sustained only one gunshot injury, which proved fatal to him. After a delay of about fifty-eight days from the date of occurrence, two new witnesses have crept up, namely, Gajendra and Pramod, and they have assigned the role of shooting the deceased person and causing his death to the applicant only.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the said delay in recording the statement of the said eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication, because the eye-witnesses named in the FIR, namely, Neeraj and Umesh, have reiterated the allegations made in the FIR, whereby there were general accusations against all the accused persons. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 3 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 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.

13. 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”.

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

15. 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.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there were general accusations against all the accused persons in the FIR and subsequently the statements of two eye- witnesses purported to have been recorded fifty-eight days after the incident who have assigned the role of firing at the deceased to the applicant, 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.

17. Let the applicant- Avdhesh, 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 4 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 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.

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 17, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.180 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25(1-B)(a), 27(1) Arms Act, Police Station Sahaswan, District Budaun, during the pendency of trial.

5. As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons Harvesh Kumar @ Harsh Yadav and Sachin is stated to have fired at the deceased person, causing gunshot injury to him, thereby leading to his death over an altercation which ensued over supply of milk, whereby the brother-in-law Neeraj, a villager Umesh and other persons are stated to have seen the occurrence and the informant herself rushed the deceased to hospital, where he was declared dead on 23.04.2025 at about 10:00 a.m.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. In this particular case, the delay is fatal to the prosecution as the police station was only two kilometers away from the place of occurrence. The prosecution story further stands falsified from G.D. no.27 entered at 10:45 a.m. on the 2 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 date of occurrence i.e. 23.04.2025 itself, which mentions that Head Constable Deepak Kumar and one villager Manoj rushed the deceased to hospital, while the FIR indicates that it was the informant herself who rushed him to hospital.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there were general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR and the deceased person has sustained only one gunshot injury, which proved fatal to him. After a delay of about fifty-eight days from the date of occurrence, two new witnesses have crept up, namely, Gajendra and Pramod, and they have assigned the role of shooting the deceased person and causing his death to the applicant only.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the said delay in recording the statement of the said eye-witnesses speaks volume of false implication, because the eye-witnesses named in the FIR, namely, Neeraj and Umesh, have reiterated the allegations made in the FIR, whereby there were general accusations against all the accused persons. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 3 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 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.

13. 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”.

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

15. 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.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there were general accusations against all the accused persons in the FIR and subsequently the statements of two eye- witnesses purported to have been recorded fifty-eight days after the incident who have assigned the role of firing at the deceased to the applicant, 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.

17. Let the applicant- Avdhesh, 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 4 BAIL No. 36508 of 2025 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.

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 17, 2025 (Ravi Kant) (Krishan Pahal,J.) RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad