Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20107 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2977 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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.02 of 2025 under Sections 109(1) & 61(2) BNS, Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 01.01.2025 when the unidentified persons reportedly upon the father of informant who has suffered grievous injury. 4. It has been submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them which could be evident from the fact that FIR has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicants' involvement has been shown only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of one Vivek Kumar son of Subai who allegedly confessed his role in opening fire upon the father of informant. It is submitted that even as per his confession, the role of applicants is only that of having accompanied the main accused Vivek Kumar. The applicants are under incarceration since 06.01.2025 without any previous criminal history. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that the applicants' involvement is evident from the confessional statement of Vivek Kumar. It is submitted that the applicant has no 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 FIR has been filed against unidentified persons and involvement of applicants has been shown only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of main accused Vivek Kumar who also indicates the role of applicants as only having accompanied him during the incident. The applicants are under incarceration since 06.01.2025 without any previous criminal history. 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, Sandeep and Gaurav @ Bhola, 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench