Bachchan Mishra @ Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30065

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4451 of 2025

Applicant :- Bachchan Mishra @ Krishna Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State and perused the record.

¶7

First Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.57 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351, 310 & 109 B.N.S., Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 19.04.2025 at about 8.00 p.m. when applicant along with co-accused are said to have attacked and inflicted serious injuries upon informant and his brothers. It is also indicated in the F.I.R. that attack took place on account of an earlier F.I.R. which was lodged against applicant and his family members with regard to an incident of same day at about 12.00 P.M.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him merely on account of political rivalry. It is submitted that a bare perusal of F.I.R. along with statement of injured clearly indicates that general role has been indicated with regard to inflicting injuries and that there is no specific allegation against applicant of having inflicted any injury whereas injury report clearly indicates only a single lacerated wound on the injured. It is submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is under incarceration since 21.04.2025.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that it was in fact the applicant upon whose phone call the injured reached the place and is also complicit in the allegations levelled against him.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central

¶12

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

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 there is no specific role assigned to the applicant of having caused injuries upon the family members of informant. Investigation is still ongoing in which applicant undertakes to co-operate.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Bachchan Mishra @ Krishna Kumar 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 BNS.

¶21

(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 BNS.

¶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 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Satish

¶24

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

Bachchan Mishra @ Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachchan Mishra @ Krishna Kumar 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

Dhiru @ Dhirendra and another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deena Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shila Jeet Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Sani Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.