Allahabad High Court
Suleman vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17907
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2670 of 2025
Applicant :- Suleman
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 6 of 2025, under Section 262, 109(1) of BNS, Police Station Baba Bazar, District Ayodhya.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 5th January, 2025 when the applicant who was arrested in previously registered case tried to escape from police custody. It has been stated that for the purposes of his escape, the applicant snatched a pistol from a police personnel and while trying to escape opened fire resulting in injury to SHO Shailendra Kumar Azad. The F.I.R. also states that in return firing, the applicant was thereafter injured in his leg.
4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be apparent from the fact that there is no injury upon any of the police personnel. It is submitted that even as per averments made in the F.I.R., there is no injury indicated which would be referable to Section 109(1) BNS 2023. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 5th January, 2025 and his previous criminal history has already been explained in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. itself indicates that a cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained in the affidavit.
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 perusal of the F.I.R. that provisions of Section 109 (1) BNS 2023 do not appear to be made out. The applicant is under incarceration since 5th January, 2025 and his previous criminal history has already been explained.
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 Suleman 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 :- 1.4.2025
prabhat
