Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. Second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 439 of 2024 under Section 109 BNS Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur. First bail application bearing No. 420 of 2025 having been dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident has taken place on 7th October, 2024 at about 2.00 P.M. when the applicant allegedly attacked the nephew of informant and inflicted grievous injuries upon him.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that even as per statement of injured, the alleged attack took place on spur of moment due to disagreement with regard to money. It is submitted that injury report also indicates single perforated injury in the abdomen which may not come within purview of Section 109 BNS 2023. It is submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant that the injury caused was with knowledge and in fact intention of causing murder. The applicant is under incarceration since 29th October, 2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that not only the contents of F.I.R. but the statement of injured as well as injury report clearly corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant of having caused grievous injury upon the nephew of informant. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

6. 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 as per allegations levelled against the applicant and the statement of injured, applicant attacked the nephew of informant over a dispute with regard to money. The aspect of such an act having been committed on the spur of moment would be subject matter of evidence as well as the aspect of single injury in the abdomen coming within purview of Section 109 BNS 2023. The applicant is under incarceration since 14th September, 2024 without any previous criminal history.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant Anas 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 :- 9.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. Second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 439 of 2024 under Section 109 BNS Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur. First bail application bearing No. 420 of 2025 having been dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident has taken place on 7th October, 2024 at about 2.00 P.M. when the applicant allegedly attacked the nephew of informant and inflicted grievous injuries upon him.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that even as per statement of injured, the alleged attack took place on spur of moment due to disagreement with regard to money. It is submitted that injury report also indicates single perforated injury in the abdomen which may not come within purview of Section 109 BNS 2023. It is submitted that there is no allegation against the applicant that the injury caused was with knowledge and in fact intention of causing murder. The applicant is under incarceration since 29th October, 2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that not only the contents of F.I.R. but the statement of injured as well as injury report clearly corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant of having caused grievous injury upon the nephew of informant. It is however admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

6. 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 as per allegations levelled against the applicant and the statement of injured, applicant attacked the nephew of informant over a dispute with regard to money. The aspect of such an act having been committed on the spur of moment would be subject matter of evidence as well as the aspect of single injury in the abdomen coming within purview of Section 109 BNS 2023. The applicant is under incarceration since 14th September, 2024 without any previous criminal history.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant Anas 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 :- 9.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench