Paikarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16101

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11340 of 2024

Applicant :- Paikarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Lalla Ji Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for opposite party.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

The instant first bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR No. 0098 of 2024, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Paduwa, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 14.03.2024 when applicant and his son as said to have entered in an altercation with the husband of informant and have inflicted serious injuries upon him.

¶10

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It has also been submitted that in fact an altercation had ensued at the instance of husband of informant in which applicant also suffered grievous injuries with his injury reports being brought on record alongwith rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that wife of applicant has also sought to lodge a First Information Report, which having not been lodged, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed and still pending consideration. It is submitted that even otherwise the allegations indicate altercation having occurred on the spur of moment without any premeditation resulting in injuries on both sides and therefore at this stage it cannot be ascertained as to the instigator of the altercation. It is submitted that applicant does not any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with the submission that even as per submissions of learned counsel for applicant, the incident as alleged has taken place resulting in

¶12

injuries upon husband of informant. It is, however, admitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

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 serious injuries have been inflicted on both sides with FIR having been lodged against applicant and application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. pending against husband of informant and this stage it cannot be ascertained as to who is instigator of incident; the applicant being under incarceration since 03.04.2024 with only the second prosecution witness having been examined, as such, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Paikarma , 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶21

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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Satish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Paikarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paikarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar @ Taiyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sahil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

Akash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Dhar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Bhanu Datt vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Baran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others