Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28879 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4220 of 2025 Applicant :- Pawan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava 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 informant has been filed by Mr. Ramakar Shukla, Advocate, which is taken on record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 27 of 2025 under Sections 109, 352, 351 (3), 324 (5), BNS, P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.01.2025 when the applicant alongwith co-accused allegedly attacked the son of informant and his friend resulting in grievous injuries. 4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the statement of injured where the role of firing has been attributed to co-accused Vinod Yadav and of grievous injury being inflicted by co-accused Anarjeet Yadav. It is submitted that only general allegations regarding applicant's presence have been indicated. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 23.01.2025 and a previous criminal history has been explained. 5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the aspect of applicant's complicity is clearly evident not only from the FIR but also in the statement of injured. Learned counsel for informant has also drawn attention to the injury report indicating grievous injuries having been suffered. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions, however, admits that previous criminal history of one case 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 primary allegation of opening fire has been attributed to co-accused Vinod Yadav while inflicting grievous injuries has been attributed to co-accused Anarjeet Yadav. Only general allegations with regard to applicant's presence and inflicting injuries had been indicated. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in the affidavit. 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- Pawan Yadav 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 :- 16.5.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench