Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28261 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1856 of 2025 Applicant :- Rampat Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Misra,Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.015 of 2025, under Sections 115(2),351(2), 352, 117(3) BNS registered at Police Station Mankapur, District Gonda. 3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 06.01.2025 when applicant and his brother were having an altercation. As per allegations, the informant's wife sought to mediate between brothers, during the course of which, the applicant attacked and grievously injured her. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him and none of the sections imputed are made out particularly in view of fact that FIR does not indicate any intention upon applicant of causing any grievous injury to the injured. It is submitted that a bare perusal of FIR indicates that injury has been suffered due to an altercation on the spur of moment. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and had cooperated during investigation. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that injury report and statement of examining doctor clearly indicates grievous injury having been suffered. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the wife of informant got injured when she sought to mediate in an altercation between the brothers. The aspect of imputation of Section 117(3) BNS pertaining to intention of applicant to cause injury would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. For the remaining sections imputed against applicant, maximum punishment less than 7 years. Applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history and cooperated during the course of investigation. 8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant, Rampat Chauhan involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench