Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24267 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3591 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Tauhid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lok Bhawan Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ritwick Rai,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Ashutosh Verma,Aviral Raj Singh,Dhruv Kumar Singh,Palash Banerjee,Vaibhav Tiwari 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 and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 071 of 2022 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 34, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gosainganj, District Sultanpur. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 06.02.2022 at about 05:00 PM when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted injuries upon the informant. 4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case being the cousin of main accused Suleiman @ Lambardar. It is submitted that even as per FIR, the man allegation has been levelled against the said Suleiman of having caused injuries with a knife. It is submitted that applicant's previous has already been explained while he is under incarceration since 04.03.2025. It is submitted that co-accused Jaan Mohammad @ Jaggu and Lal Mohammad having similar role have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Applications No. 10677 of 2022 and 1753 of 2023. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that applicant has been apprehended only after proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were issued. It is, however, admitted that main role has assigned to the co-accused Suleiman. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. 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 the applicant has been nominated in the FIR as having accompanied the main accused Suleiman who is said to have inflicted knife injuries upon the informant. Co-accused having similar role have already been enlarged on bail as indicated hereinabove. The aspect of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been explained by the applicant that he was unaware in summons since he is working as a tailor in Ahmadabad. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. 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. Let applicant, Mohd. Tauhid, 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 :- 29.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench