Allahabad High Court
Shiv Lal Saroj vs State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19020
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14719 of 2023
Applicant :- Shiv Lal Saroj
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Shukla,Ajay Kumar Ojha,Prabhat Kumar Ojha,Sampurna Nand Shukla
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-opposite party and perused the record.
2. The first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.92 of 2023 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh.
3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.07.2023 at about 6 a.m. when the applicant allegedly attacked the wife and son of the informant inflicting serious life threatening injuries upon the son.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated with regard to sections imputed against him and that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. clearly indicates an altercation having taken place on the spur of moment. It is submitted that the wife has not suffered any substantial injury. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 06.07.2023 with evidence not yet having commenced during trial. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the averments made in F.I.R. particularly pertaining to the son of the informant are clearly made out from the injury report which clearly indicates life threatening injury having been inflicted upon him. It is, however, admitted that the 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that an altercation between the parties have ensued on spur of moment without any premeditation; the applicant is under incarceration since 06.07.2023 without any previous criminal history; in pursuance of directions issued by this Court earlier, report dated 13.08.2024 has been submitted by the trial court indicating that as yet evidence has not commenced, therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant- Shiv Lal Saroj, involved in 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 of 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 of 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 :- 4.4.2025
Shubhankar
