Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25273
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3656 of 2025
Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Shyam Shankar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 150 of 2025 under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki.
3. It is submitted that as per gang chart, applicants have been shown involved in two cases bearing Case Crime No. 203 of 2024 and Case Crime No. 204 of 2024 in which they have already been enlarged on bail by Trial Court in Bail Applications No. 1466 of 2024 and 1465 of 2024 respectively.
4. It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid cases, applicants are shown involved in one other case the details of which have been explained in paragraph-8 of the bail application.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that applicant is enlarged on bail in all cases indicated against him.
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 applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicants, Sandeep Kumar and Amit involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Satish
