Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17491 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2350 of 2025 Applicant :- Kishore Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Maurya,Vikas Maurya 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. 2. Second Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.431 of 2024 under Section 305 I.P.C., P.S. Gosainganj, District Lucknow. It has been submitted that the earlier Bail Application of applicant bearing no.1836 of 2025 had been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.02.2025 granting liberty to file afresh. It is in pursuance thereof, the present bail application has been filed. 3. As per contents of F.I.R. the applicant was instrumental in informant's minor daughter committing suicide since he had enticed her on a false pretext of marriage and was also in physical relationship with her but subsequently denied to marry daughter of informant leading her to suicide. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that for purposes of Section 305 I.P.C., the incident should be proximate to abetment of commission of suicide. It is submitted that in the present case, the incident is said to have taken place on 14.05.2024 with F.I.R. being lodged only on 12.10.2024 without indicating any such proximate reason. It is also submitted that there is difference between breach of promise and intention to deceive from the inception. He has also adverted to post-mortem report to submit that the same does not indicate any physical relations between the two. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 08.11.2024. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. itself clearly indicate the aspect that suicide was committed once applicant revealed to deceased that he was already married. 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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no cogent explanation for delay in lodging of F.I.R. It also appears that informant is not an eye witness to incident narrated in the F.I.R. itself. The aspect of proximity of incident with occurrence of abetment of suicide is an aspect requiring consideration during trial. Applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 08.11.2024,as such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Kishore, involved in aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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, 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench