Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16820 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2386 of 2025 Applicant :- Sudhanshu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anurudh Kumar Singh,Ram Briksh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 3. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.83 of 2025 under Section 109(1), 352, 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 31.01.2025 at about 6.30 P.M. when informant's son, Ujwal Agnihotri was attacked by applicant and co- accused resulting in gun shot injuries. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he has not been named in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has drawn attention to statement of injured to submit that the entire role of firing has been attributed to one Nikhil Pandit who is the main accused with the only role of applicant being accompanied with said Nikhil Pandit. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 01.02.2025 and does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that statement of injured clearly indicates role of applicant of accompanying the main accused Nikhil Pandit. It is however admitted on the basis of instructions that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 7. 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." 8. 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 from a perusal of statement of injured that main accused is one Nikhil Pandit who is said to have opened fire upon the injured; at this stage, the only role attributed to applicant is that of accompanying the main accused and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Sudhanshu, 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 :- 25.3.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench