Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34111 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4933 of 2025 Applicant :- Naveen And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 210 of 2020 under Section 307/34, 452 IPC, Police Station Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 5th April, 2020 at about 9.00 P.M. when the applicants alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his family members and seriously injured him. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that they have been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against them which would be evident from the fact that F.I.R. has been filed with considerable delay of four days which is unexplained. It is submitted that in fact the F.I.R. has been lodged in retaliation to the F.I.R. which has earlier lodged against the informant and his family members with regard to previous enmity. It is submitted that even otherwise primary gist of allegation of firing has been attributed to main accused Bachchu Lal. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is admitted that applicants do not have previous criminal history. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the aspect of unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. would require consideration by trial court at the time of evidence. Even otherwise the main role of firing has been attributed to main accused BachchuLal . The applicants do not have any previous criminal history. 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." Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Naveen, Vinod and Yashpal @ Ishapal 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants misuse 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 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 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 :- 30.5.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench