Shankar and Kamal Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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.84 of 2025 under Sections 5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & 11 Animal Cruelty Act., P.S. Isanagar, District Kheri.

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.03.2025 at about 09:10 PM when certain unidentified persons are said to have attacked a team led by the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jitendra Mani Tripathi who had received information with regard to cow slaughter taking place and smuggling of beef.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them which would be evident from the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons whereas applicants have been apprehended subsequently without any recovery from their person. It is submitted that applicant no.1 does not have any previous criminal history while previous criminal history of two cases of applicant no.2 has already been explained and they are under incarceration since 10.03.2025.

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicants were identified by the said doctor leading the team who identified applicants as persons who had attacked the team. It is, however, admitted that applicants were not apprehended from the site and there is no subsequent recovery from them.

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. "

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that applicants have been nominated only on the basis of identification of applicants from photograph by the said Dr. Jitendra Mani Tripathi. They have not been apprehended from the spot nor is there any recovery from them.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

Let applicants Shankar and Kamal Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 kvg/-