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, Mr. Mohd. Anas Siddiqui, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 608 of 2024 under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 351 (3), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 28.07.2024 at about 03:00 PM when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted grievous injuries upon private parts of the informant's minor daughter.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her only on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the deposition of the informant as PW-1 during the course of trial in which the informant has not supported the prosecution version in his cross-examination. It is submitted that applicant being nineteen years of age and he is under incarceration since 04.08.2024 with only one prosecution witness yet examined and fourteen witnesses still remaining.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the injury report clearly corroborates allegations levelled in the FIR. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention to the examination-in-chief of PW-1 to submit that he has totally supported the prosecution version. It is, however, admitted that there are fifteen prosecution witnesses and applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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. 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 the informant as PW-1 has taken a contrary stand in his cross-examination than the prosecution version and his own version as PW-1 in examination-in-chief. It is, however, admitted that the applicant being seventy two years of age and he is under incarceration since 04.08.2024 and Trial Court report submitted in connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10190 of 2024 (Haleemat versus State of U.P.), as yet only one prosecution witness has been examined with fourteen witnesses still remaining. Evidently, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Sanno involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her counsel. In case of her 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 her 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 :- 14.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 608 of 2024 under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 351 (3), 352 B.N.S., P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 28.07.2024 at about 03:00 PM when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have attacked and inflicted grievous injuries upon private parts of the informant's minor daughter.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her only on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the deposition of the informant as PW-1 during the course of trial in which the informant has not supported the prosecution version in his cross-examination. It is submitted that applicant being nineteen years of age and he is under incarceration since 04.08.2024 with only one prosecution witness yet examined and fourteen witnesses still remaining.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the injury report clearly corroborates allegations levelled in the FIR. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention to the examination-in-chief of PW-1 to submit that he has totally supported the prosecution version. It is, however, admitted that there are fifteen prosecution witnesses and applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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. 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 the informant as PW-1 has taken a contrary stand in his cross-examination than the prosecution version and his own version as PW-1 in examination-in-chief. It is, however, admitted that the applicant being seventy two years of age and he is under incarceration since 04.08.2024 and Trial Court report submitted in connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10190 of 2024 (Haleemat versus State of U.P.), as yet only one prosecution witness has been examined with fourteen witnesses still remaining. Evidently, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Sanno involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her counsel. In case of her 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 her 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 :- 14.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench