Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18840 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9811 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakeeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Mishra,Sukh Deo Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Mohd. Ikbal Ahmad, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Sukh Deo Singh, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.232 of 2024, under Sections , 307, 504, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur. 3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 07.06.2024 when the applicant allegedly attacked the informant and inflicted serious injuries upon him. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the injury report indicates only simple nature of two injuries suffered by informant. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the statement of injured recorded as P.W.1 during the course of trial which has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 28.01.2025 in which he has not supported prosecution story. Applicant is said to be under incarceration since 08.06.2024 with his previous criminal history of 11 cases having been explained. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that even the injury report clearly indicates the aspect of incident having taken place and therefore corroborates the allegations levelled against the applicant. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the bail application. 5. 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." 6. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the injury report does not support imposition of sections imputed against applicant. The injured in his deposition as P.W.1 before trial court has also not apparently supported the prosecution version. Applicant is under incarceration since 08.06.2024 with previous criminal history having already been explained. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Rakeeb, 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 :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench