Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21700 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13320 of 2024 Applicant :- Vikash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Mishra,Abhishek Shukla,Saumya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.35 of 2014 under Sections 307, 394, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District, Pratapgarh. 3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 14.01.2014 at about 07:30 P.M. when three unidentified persons are said to have opened fire resulting in injuries upon brother of informant. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which may be evident from fact that F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons with applicant being apprehended subsequently. It is submitted that there is no recovery from applicant who is under incarceration since 14.07.2014 while trial is still ongoing. It is therefore submitted that there is serious violation of rights of applicant in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but on the basis of instructions received admits that F.I.R. was lodged on 14.01.2014 whreafter applicant was apprehended on 10.07.2014. Instructions also indicate that despite there being six prosecution witnesses, evidence has not commenced till date with committal taking place on 30.01.2025. 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, the present case indicates sorry state of affairs where a person has been kept in custody for the past almost eleven years as an under trial without even trial commencing with evidence of not even a single prosecution witness having taken place. It is thus evident that fundamental rights enshrined to applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been seriously violated. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Vikash Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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/she 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/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law. 10. It is also directed that trial court shall make all endeavors to expedite trial and to conclude the same expeditiously. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench