Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24651 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3543 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikram and Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.84 of 2025 under Sections 5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & 11 Animal Cruelty Act., P.S. Isanagar, District Kheri. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 05.03.2025 at about 01.10 PM when certain unidentified persons are said to have attacked a team led by the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jitendra Mani Tripathi who had received information with regard to cow slaughter taking place and smuggling of beef. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them which would be evident from the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons whereas applicants have been apprehended subsequently without any recovery from their person. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case against both the applicants has already been explained and they are under incarceration since 06.03.2025. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicants were identified by the said doctor leading the team who identified applicants as persons who had attacked the team. It is, however, admitted that applicants were not apprehended from the site and there is no subsequent recovery from them. 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, perusal of material available on record and prima facie subject to further evidence being led during trial, applicants have been nominated only on the basis of identification of applicants from photograph by the said Dr. Jitendra Mani Tripathi. They have not been apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from them. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicants Vikram and Raju, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 his 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench