Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Sanjeev Shukla learned counsel for informant.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. First bail application has been filed pertaining to case crime No. 332 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Purwa, District Unnao.

4. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 17th April, 2023 when one Tillu @ Satish Nai is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of applicant with regard to gata No. 369 having an area of 0.6230 Hectare in the village in question.

5. As per allegations levelled, the said property belonged to the uncle of informant who passed away issueless on 20th April, 2022 and the sale deed executed on 17th April, 2023 was on the basis of impersonation and only to obtain the said property illegally.

6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he is merely purchaser of the plot in question whereas the main allegation of impersonation has been levelled against said Tillu @ Satish Nai. It is submitted that till date no suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 has been filed by the informant and until and unless the said registered sale deed is cancelled by any court of competent jurisdiction, the same would be legal. It is also submitted that unnecessarily a criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute.

7. It is also submitted that the applicant has previous criminal history of two cases although a final report has been filed in one of them and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the other one as indicated in the supplementary affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submissions that the applicant is in fact the ultimate beneficiary of the forgery which has been committed with regard to the sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 and therefore his role in the said transaction is apparent and clear. It is therefore submitted that the sections imputed against the applicant are clearly made out.

9. 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 :- "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." "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."

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to evidence the allegations levelled in the first information report clearly indicate the fact that applicant is a purchaser of the plot in question and the primary allegation of impersonation has been levelled against said Tillu @ Satis Nai. Previous criminal history has been indicated in the supplementary affidavit filed earlier by the applicant. The said registered sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 has not yet been cancelled or set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction and is also an aspect requiring consideration. This court finds that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let applicant, Ram Ratan, 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:- (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. (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. (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. (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. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 prabhat

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Sanjeev Shukla learned counsel for informant.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. First bail application has been filed pertaining to case crime No. 332 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Purwa, District Unnao.

4. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 17th April, 2023 when one Tillu @ Satish Nai is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of applicant with regard to gata No. 369 having an area of 0.6230 Hectare in the village in question.

5. As per allegations levelled, the said property belonged to the uncle of informant who passed away issueless on 20th April, 2022 and the sale deed executed on 17th April, 2023 was on the basis of impersonation and only to obtain the said property illegally.

6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he is merely purchaser of the plot in question whereas the main allegation of impersonation has been levelled against said Tillu @ Satish Nai. It is submitted that till date no suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 has been filed by the informant and until and unless the said registered sale deed is cancelled by any court of competent jurisdiction, the same would be legal. It is also submitted that unnecessarily a criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute.

7. It is also submitted that the applicant has previous criminal history of two cases although a final report has been filed in one of them and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the other one as indicated in the supplementary affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submissions that the applicant is in fact the ultimate beneficiary of the forgery which has been committed with regard to the sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 and therefore his role in the said transaction is apparent and clear. It is therefore submitted that the sections imputed against the applicant are clearly made out.

9. 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 :- "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." "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."

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, subject to evidence the allegations levelled in the first information report clearly indicate the fact that applicant is a purchaser of the plot in question and the primary allegation of impersonation has been levelled against said Tillu @ Satis Nai. Previous criminal history has been indicated in the supplementary affidavit filed earlier by the applicant. The said registered sale deed dated 17th April, 2023 has not yet been cancelled or set aside by any court of competent jurisdiction and is also an aspect requiring consideration. This court finds that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

12. Let applicant, Ram Ratan, 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:- (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. (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. (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. (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. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 prabhat