Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25997 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8246 of 2023 Applicant :- Meraj Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, 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. 576 of 2022 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Madiyawan, District Lucknow. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 30th October, 2022 when the applicant allegedly attacked and grievously injured the brother of informant due to his illicit relations with the applicant's wife. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that the applicant's wife and the injured were having illicit relations. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 2nd November, 2022 with only four prosecution witnesses out of 17 having been examined. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of injured and injury report clearly corroborates allegations levelled against the applicant due to which Section 307 IPC is clearly made out. It is however admitted that charge sheet indicates 17 prosecution witnesses. 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 F.I.R. itself indicates illicit relations established between the applicant's wife and the informant's brother which has led to the altercation. The aspect of statement of injured being corroborated by the injury report would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. As per trial court report dated 24th December, 2024, four prosecution witnesses have been examined but 13 prosecution witnesses still remain. There is clearly no hope of early conclusion of trial although the applicant is already incarceration since 2nd November, 2022. 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 Meraj Khan 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 :- 5.5.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench