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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17068

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8861 of 2024

Applicant :- Pawan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwanath Tiwari,Kaushal 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 State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 323,325,504,506,308, 427 IPC, P.S. Mahrajganj, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶8

As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on Ist April, 2021 at about 3.30 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the brother of informant and inflicted injuries upon him.

¶9

It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only due to earlier political rivalry. It is submitted that all the offences, even if made out are punishable by imprisonment only up to 7 years and the present case, the trial is at a standstill. It is submitted that previous criminal history has been explained in rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit. He has also sought parity with co-accused Lakhan Singh @ Atul Singh who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 622 of 2022.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer for bail does not dispute the aforesaid fact and the parity so claimed.

¶11

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 :-

¶12

"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

¶13

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

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 the aspect of parity being granted to Lakhan Singh as indicated herein above and the fact that offences are punishable of imprisonment up till 7 years, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Pawan 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 prabhat

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Arif Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

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

Salmaan vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Alias Bachha Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another