Kaushal Kishor @ Sachin Chauhan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 661 of 2024 under Section 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. As per contents of FIR, police team acting on the basis of information supplied on 3rd September, 2024 intercepted the applicant and another person namely Suraj singh and on their information allegedly recovered various other motorcycles which were indicated as stolen. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the recovery memo itself since the applicant was said to be riding on motorcycle bearing registration No. UP43Y3847 which in the entire recovery memo is not indicated as stolen. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis of his alleged confessional statement.

It is also submitted that previous criminal history of 11 cases has been explained. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused Suraj Singh and Shubham singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1157 of 2025 and 13181 of 2024 respectively. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that it is on the basis of information supplied by applicant that other stolen motorcycles were recovered and indicate his complicity in sections imputed against him. It is however admitted that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that from perusal of recovery memo that applicant was apprehended upon information supplied.

It is stated that applicant was riding a motorcycle bearing No. UP43Y 3847 but there does not appear to be any allegation of his motorcycle being stolen. The applicant appears to have been nominated on the basis of his confessional statement. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. Previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained. 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. " 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.