Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18694 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2649 of 2025 Applicant :- Mirza Arbaz @ Doctor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0430 of 2024, under sections 309(6), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 317(2) BNS- P.S.- Gosaiganj District- Sultanpur. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and there is no cogent piece of evidence with the police to connect him with the present matter. He also added that there is no independent public eye witness of the incident and police only on the basis of suspicion has arrested the applicant and connected. Learned counsel submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. 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." 6. 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 piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; there is no independent public eye witness of the incident; the applicant has explained criminal history, 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. 7. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant Mirza Arbaz @ Doctor, 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/she 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/her under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 of BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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 :- 4.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench