Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8042 of 2024

Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Istekhaf,Avinash Pratap Singh,Mohammad Shamim,Ravi Kant,Shahid Salam,Sikandar Zulqarnain Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.472 of 2023 under Sections 307, 323 , 504, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgrah.

¶7

As per contents of first information report, applicant and coaccused are said to have attacked the son of informant while inflicting grievous injuries upon him.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of previous enmity and he is under incarceration since 05.01.2024 with only charges having been framed. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that not only the injured but even eye witness account clearly nominated applicant as having fired upon the injured resulting in fire arm injuries. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶10

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 :-

¶11

"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."

¶12

"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."

¶13

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 in pursuance of direction issued earlier, trial court report dated 15.05.2024 has been submitted indicating that although charges

¶14

were framed on 11.12.2024, evidence has not yet commenced. The applicant is under incarceration since 05.01.2024 without any previous criminal history and as per charge sheet, there are 14 prosecution witnesses. Clearly, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicant Nadeem , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶18

(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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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/her in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 kvg/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nadeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem 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

Prianka (Minor) Thru. Father Sri Chunnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education, Lko. and Others

M/S Jss Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi East Thru. Director Shiv Pratap Singh vs Ajay Kumar Singh

Ankita Mishra and Anr. Vs Piyush Mishra

Neetu @ Neetu Kumari Pathak vs Pawan Kumar

Ritesh Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Gramya Vikas and 7 Others

Ram Naresh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others