Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23961 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8430 of 2023 Applicant :- Khaleel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Aditya Kumar,Anil Kumar Gautam,Durga Prasad Shukla,Jatin Gajwani,Padmakar Nath Tripathi,Satish Kumar,Sudhaker Prakash,Vivek Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Amit Bhradwaj holding brief for Shri Satish Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State-opposite party. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 3. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-51 of 2023, under Sections 401/307 IPC, Police Station Madion, District Lucknow. 4. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 2.2.2023 at 10.30 P.M. when the informant and other villagers heard the applicant along with co- accused hatching plan of robbery. It is alleged that when the efforts were made to apprehend them, the applicant allegedly opened fire injuring Siraj, son of the informant. 5. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration for more than 02 years and now since 4.2.2023 the trial is not being commenced. 6. It is submitted that the criminal history of 05 cases has already been explained. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application with the submission that the contents of the FIR are clearly corroborated by the medical report which indicates firearm injury upon the injured. It is however admitted that criminal history of applicant has been explained. From record it appears that although allegation of having opened firearm casts upon the applicant appears to be corroborated by the medical evidence but the same would be subject matter during the course of the trial. 8. In pursuance of the direction issued earlier, the trial court report dated 22.4.2025 has been placed on record indicating that till date even charges have not been framed owing to the fact that co-accused Mohd. Imran @ Qadir is at large when non- bailable warrant having been issued against him. 9. 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." 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, appears that despite having two years incarceration the trial has not yet been commenced. 11. Upon considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. 12. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 13. Let applicant- Khaleel, involved in 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 B.N.S.S. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 B.N.S.S. (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 B.N.S.S.. 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 :- 25.4.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench