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.118 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427, 325, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 27.05.2024 at about 08.30 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted grievous injury upon the informant and his brother.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the fact that injured in the FIR has neither nominated the applicant nor has any allegation being levelled against him and has in fact nominated the applicant as the person causing grievous injury only in the additional statement. It is therefore submitted that prosecution story against applicant is only sought to be improved subsequently. It is submitted that even otherwise the aspect of imputation of Section 326 Cr.P.C. would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be determined at this stage in view of serious contradiction in averments made in the FIR and the additional statement of injured. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant of four cases has been duly explained. Applicant is under incarceration since 30.12.2024, trial not yet having commenced.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that statement of not only the injured but eye witnesses also clearly indicate role of applicant in having caused grievous injury upon injured who has sustained permanent damage in his left eye. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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 applicant was neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation being levelled against him. The aspect of eye witness account corroborating the additional statement would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 30.12.2024 and as per report dated 13.05.2025 submitted by trial court, evidence has not yet commenced.

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, Ram Vishal Verma 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 :- 15.5.2025 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.118 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 308, 427, 325, 326 IPC, registered at Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 27.05.2024 at about 08.30 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted grievous injury upon the informant and his brother.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the fact that injured in the FIR has neither nominated the applicant nor has any allegation being levelled against him and has in fact nominated the applicant as the person causing grievous injury only in the additional statement. It is therefore submitted that prosecution story against applicant is only sought to be improved subsequently. It is submitted that even otherwise the aspect of imputation of Section 326 Cr.P.C. would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be determined at this stage in view of serious contradiction in averments made in the FIR and the additional statement of injured. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant of four cases has been duly explained. Applicant is under incarceration since 30.12.2024, trial not yet having commenced.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that statement of not only the injured but eye witnesses also clearly indicate role of applicant in having caused grievous injury upon injured who has sustained permanent damage in his left eye. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

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 applicant was neither named in the FIR nor has any allegation being levelled against him. The aspect of eye witness account corroborating the additional statement would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 30.12.2024 and as per report dated 13.05.2025 submitted by trial court, evidence has not yet commenced.

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, Ram Vishal Verma 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 :- 15.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench