Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23346 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3450 of 2025 Applicant :- Susheel Kumar Goswami And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath Mishra,Rahul Mishra 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 while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Advocate, which is taken on record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is also taken on record. 3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 270 of 2024 under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tarabganj, District Gonda. 4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 29.05.2024 at about 10:00 AM when the applicants alongwith co-accused are said to have attacked the informant and his family members inflicting serious injuries. 5. It is also submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them and only general allegations have been levelled in the FIR. It is submitted that in fact it is a case of cross FIRs with the applicant no.1 also filing an FIR against informant and his family members which was registered as Case Crime No.271 of 2024. It is submitted that both the sides have sustained injuries. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicants have already been explained. The applicants are under incarceration since 27.03.2025. 6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission particularly by learned counsel for informant that it is in fact the applicants who instigated the entire event leading injuries upon the informant and his family members. Learned AGA on the basis on instructions, however, admits that previous criminal history of applicants have already been explained. 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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that cross FIRs have been filed that both the sides with injuries also being suffered by members of both the families. At this stage, it cannot be ascertained as to the instigator of the incident. The applicants are under incarceration since 27.03.2025 with previous criminal having been explained. 9. 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. Let applicants, Susheel Kumar Goswami and Inspector @ Shiva involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench