Allahabad High Court
Amit Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23715
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3476 of 2025
Applicant :- Amit Maurya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and 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. 42 of 2024 under Sections 323, 325, 326 504, 506, 452, 307 & 308, 34 of IPC, P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi.
3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 12th March, 2024 at about 10.30 P.M. when the applicant alongwith co-accused is said to have barged into the house of informant and have inflicted serious injuries upon the informant and his family members.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and in fact it is the informant and his family members who have entered into an altercation with the applicant and his family members have also inflicted injuries upon them. He has adverted to the injury reports of the informant as well as applicant and their family members to submit that at this stage it can not be ascertained as to who is the aggressor of the proceeding particularly since injuries have been suffered by both sides. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14th March, 2024 with trial not yet having commenced. He has adverted to the order rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11714/2022, Mukesh Kumar versus The State of Rajasthan & Another.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application and has adverted to injuries suffered by the informant and his family members. However he does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history and that injuries have been suffered by both sides.
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 an altercation had ensued between the parties resulting in injuries on both sides. At this stage it may not be conducive to ascertain the aggressor in the said proceedings which shall be subject matter of evidence particularly since both sides have suffered injuries. The order passed by Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar (Supra) may also be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
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 Amit Maurya 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 :- 25.4.2025
Muk
