High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for applicant, 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. 208 of 2024 under Section 74,109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 23rd December, 2024 at about 7.00 P.M. when the sister of informant was attacked by co-accused Nasir Ali. Allegation levelled is that upon hearing of cries of help, the informant and his brother rushed to help whereafter they were attacked by the applicant with co-accused Nasir Ali. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that applicant is brother of main accused Nasir Ali. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of Saima Bano, the sister of informant who in her statment under Section 183 BNSS has not shown the presence of applicant during altercation. He has also adverted to the statement of injured in which allegation levelled in the F.I.R. have been sought to be made better by indicating role of applicant as catching hold of the injured while the main accused Nasir Ali is said to have inflicted injuries with knife. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 25th December, 2024 without any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of injured clearly indicates complicity of applicant in the incident. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 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 from the F.I.R. that main gist of allegations has been levelled against co- accused Nasir Ali upon whom the allegation of inflicting injuries with knife has been imputed. The aspect of role of applicant in the altercation would require consideration by trial court during course of evidence particularly in view of statement of sister of the informant. The applicant is under incarceration since 25th December, 2024 without any previous criminal history. 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 Sakir Ali, 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 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 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, 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 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 :- 23.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for applicant, 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. 208 of 2024 under Section 74,109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 23rd December, 2024 at about 7.00 P.M. when the sister of informant was attacked by co-accused Nasir Ali. Allegation levelled is that upon hearing of cries of help, the informant and his brother rushed to help whereafter they were attacked by the applicant with co-accused Nasir Ali. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of the fact that applicant is brother of main accused Nasir Ali. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statement of Saima Bano, the sister of informant who in her statment under Section 183 BNSS has not shown the presence of applicant during altercation. He has also adverted to the statement of injured in which allegation levelled in the F.I.R. have been sought to be made better by indicating role of applicant as catching hold of the injured while the main accused Nasir Ali is said to have inflicted injuries with knife. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 25th December, 2024 without any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of injured clearly indicates complicity of applicant in the incident. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 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 from the F.I.R. that main gist of allegations has been levelled against co- accused Nasir Ali upon whom the allegation of inflicting injuries with knife has been imputed. The aspect of role of applicant in the altercation would require consideration by trial court during course of evidence particularly in view of statement of sister of the informant. The applicant is under incarceration since 25th December, 2024 without any previous criminal history. 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 Sakir Ali, 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 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 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, 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 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 :- 23.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench