Nandlal Alias Pappu vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.97 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 103(1), 352 and 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Ramnagar, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

¶13

As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that the deceased was found in the injured state and admitted in Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital Varanasi and was referred to BHU Trauma Centre and subsequently taken to Maxwell Hospital, Varanasi and was again transferred back to BHU, thereupon the deceased told his brother and other family members that applicant had assaulted the deceased persons on being exhorted by his wife on 10.05.2025. The informant had reached the police station on 11.05.2025 itself at 02:00 pm., but the police directed him to first take care of the deceased person. As such, the FIR was instituted on 15.05.2025 at 11.50 pm. The FIR is delayed by about 5 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶14

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The said fact that the deceased told the informant and other family members about the assault being made by the applicant is false and there is video recording of statement of the deceased

¶15

BAIL No. 39000 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

whereby, he has stated that he was assaulted by some persons but he shall tell their names next morning, not naming any accused in the said statement speaks volume of false implication as the name of applicant has come up as an afterthought that too 5 days after incident. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the applicant was nominated by the deceased person in the statement before his family members. As such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 .

¶21

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" .

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

BAIL No. 39000 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶27

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 the FIR is delayed by about 5 days even the video recorded by the police does not mention the name of any accused persons 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 .

¶28

Let the applicant- Nandlal Alias Pappu , 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.

¶29

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

November 18, 2025 Imtiyaz

¶35

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nandlal Alias Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandlal Alias Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pravesh Nirala Alias Kulli vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheer Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suhail Alias Aau vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.

Pintu Alias Ram Bahadur vs State of U.P.