High Court

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 134 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 333, 118(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Madeyganj, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow). As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 12th September, 2024 when the brother of informant, Ashutosh Dwivedi was attacked by the applicant and co- accused due to which he suffered grievous injuries. The F.I.R. states that initially the informant's brother was called to a particular place by one Jitendra whereafter co-accused Alok Mishra fired upon the brother of informant but he escapped from same, whereafter the applicant and other co-accused are said to have inflicted head injuries upon him. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that at least three persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. having caused head injuries to the applicant. It is submitted that main accused Alok Mishra has already been enlarged on bail by trial court in bail application No. 2856 of 2025 and co-accused Rohit Nisad who had been nominated in similar role as that of applicant has also been enlarged on bail by sessions court in bail application No. 1083 of 2025 primarily on the ground that X-ray reports of the injured do not indicate any fracture. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 13th September, 2024. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of injured clearly indicates the applicant as the persons being indicated as having caused injury upon the person. It is also submitted that injury report clearly corroborates the allegations levelled. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained. 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 role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Alok Mishra who has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. Co- accused having a similar role as that of applicant has been enlarged on bail. The injury report brought on record by means of counter affidavit although indicates head injuries but are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. The x-ray report also does not indicate any fracture having occasioned for any vital part of the injured. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 13th September, 2024. 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 Suraj Singh @ Raja 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 BNS. (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 BNSS. 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 :- 19.5.2025 prabhat

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 134 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 333, 118(1), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Madeyganj, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow). As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 12th September, 2024 when the brother of informant, Ashutosh Dwivedi was attacked by the applicant and co- accused due to which he suffered grievous injuries. The F.I.R. states that initially the informant's brother was called to a particular place by one Jitendra whereafter co-accused Alok Mishra fired upon the brother of informant but he escapped from same, whereafter the applicant and other co-accused are said to have inflicted head injuries upon him. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that at least three persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. having caused head injuries to the applicant. It is submitted that main accused Alok Mishra has already been enlarged on bail by trial court in bail application No. 2856 of 2025 and co-accused Rohit Nisad who had been nominated in similar role as that of applicant has also been enlarged on bail by sessions court in bail application No. 1083 of 2025 primarily on the ground that X-ray reports of the injured do not indicate any fracture. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 13th September, 2024. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of injured clearly indicates the applicant as the persons being indicated as having caused injury upon the person. It is also submitted that injury report clearly corroborates the allegations levelled. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained. 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 role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Alok Mishra who has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. Co- accused having a similar role as that of applicant has been enlarged on bail. The injury report brought on record by means of counter affidavit although indicates head injuries but are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. The x-ray report also does not indicate any fracture having occasioned for any vital part of the injured. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 13th September, 2024. 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 Suraj Singh @ Raja 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 BNS. (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 BNSS. 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 :- 19.5.2025 prabhat