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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15862

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2342 of 2025

Applicant :- Akash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.339 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S.S. registered at Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.07.2024 at about 06.45 P.M. when the applicant alongwith other coaccused is said to have entered into an altercation with injured and opened fire upon them resulting in grievous injury.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. He has also drawn attention to the statements of both injured Gaurav Singh and Suraj Dhuria to submit that primary role of having opened fire upon injured has been attributed to Anurag Singh @ Shiv Raj Singh, Shivam Singh and Aman Yadav and not upon the applicant. It is therefore submitted that the sections included against applicant are clearly not made out. He has also adverted to order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12027 of 2024; Raj Singh @ Abhishek Singh whereby the said co-accused has been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 19.11.2024.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the role of applicant is self-evident from a perusal of the first

¶11

information report itself and therefore sections included against him are clearly made out.

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"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."

¶14

"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."

¶15

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, prima facie subject to evidence to be led in trial, it appears from the statement of injured that no role of firing has been attributed upon the applicant with such role having been attributed to other co-accused. The co-accused Raj Singh & Abhishek Singh has already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above.

¶16

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.

¶17

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Akash Singh , 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 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 B.N.S.S.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 B.N.S.S..

¶22

(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 B.N.S.S.. 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.

¶23

Order Date : - 19.3.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Chandan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sonu Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Madan Ji Shukla Pno. 842462859 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ishfaq Ali @ Kaliya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shiv Shambhu Yadav @ Shambhu Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Rpin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Pradeep @ Garibe vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others