Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28005 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2905 of 2025 Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to FIR/ Case Crime No.836 of 2020 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 19.09.2020 when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and seriously injured the informant alongwith his two friends. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the statement of informant and P.W.-1 during the course of trial in which he has not supported the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 20.09.2020 with trial at its inception and the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with the submission that the applicant is clearly nominated as the person who inflicted serious injuries upon one of the injured. It is, however, admitted that the 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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that although the role of having caused injury to one of the injured, has been attributed upon the applicant who is said to have attacked the said person with a knife but it appears that P.W.-1 is not supported prosecution version during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 20.09.2020 and as per report dated 19.04.2025 submitted by trial court, only P.W.-1 - Ashish Sharma has been examined whereafter bailable warrant has been issued against him. It is, however, submitted that there is no hope of properly conclusion of trial. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant, Firoz Ahmad @ Raju, involved in the 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 :- 12.5.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench