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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.862 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 324(4) BNS, registered at Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 26.12.2024 at about 11.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his friends and inflicted injuries upon them.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that both sides have suffered injuries and therefore at this stage the instigator of altercation cannot be determined. Learned counsel has drawn attention to his own injury report indicating abraded contusion on his left skull alongwith other injuries. Although the applicant has not lodged any FIR with regard to said incident. It is submitted that injuries on both sides clearly indicate that applicant was not the sole instigator of the altercation. He has also referred the statement of injured Amit Gupta to submit that it is in contradiction to allegations levelled in the FIR with regard to applicant attacking with a sharp edged weapon. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 28.12.2024 with one case of previous criminal history has been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of FIR as well as injuries inflicted upon Amit Gupta clearly indicate specific role of applicant in having caused the said injuries due to which Section 109(1) BNS has been imposed.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that an altercation has taken place between both parties with injuries also been inflicted on both sides. At this stage, it cannot be determined as to who being instigator of the said altercation. The applicant has also suffered injuries on vital part. He is under incarceration since 28.12.2024 with single case previous criminal history being explained.

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, Devendra Singh Alias Devu involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.862 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 324(4) BNS, registered at Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 26.12.2024 at about 11.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the informant and his friends and inflicted injuries upon them.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that both sides have suffered injuries and therefore at this stage the instigator of altercation cannot be determined. Learned counsel has drawn attention to his own injury report indicating abraded contusion on his left skull alongwith other injuries. Although the applicant has not lodged any FIR with regard to said incident. It is submitted that injuries on both sides clearly indicate that applicant was not the sole instigator of the altercation. He has also referred the statement of injured Amit Gupta to submit that it is in contradiction to allegations levelled in the FIR with regard to applicant attacking with a sharp edged weapon. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 28.12.2024 with one case of previous criminal history has been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of FIR as well as injuries inflicted upon Amit Gupta clearly indicate specific role of applicant in having caused the said injuries due to which Section 109(1) BNS has been imposed.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that an altercation has taken place between both parties with injuries also been inflicted on both sides. At this stage, it cannot be determined as to who being instigator of the said altercation. The applicant has also suffered injuries on vital part. He is under incarceration since 28.12.2024 with single case previous criminal history being explained.

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, Devendra Singh Alias Devu involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench