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

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Mishra,Aman Prakash,Pranjal Krishna,Rajeev Kumar Singh,Veer Bahadur Lal Srivasta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 2 stands dispensed with.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0023 of 2024 under Sections 409 & 420 IPC, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is shown as Managing Director of M/s RSS Greenlan INFRA Pvt. Ltd and had induced the informant to book a plot with the said Company. It is alleged that despite eight years having passed, neither is any plot being allocated to the informant nor has any money been returned.

4. It is also submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and even otherwise from a bare perusal of the FIR, contents indicate only civil dispute being unnecessarily given a criminal colour. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of four cases pertaining to same sections has already been explained while applicant is under incarceration since 31.12.2024.

5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that the aspect of civil dispute between the parties is entirely separate from the aspect of cheating and fraud which has been imputed against the applicant as indicated in the FIR. It is submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. It is, however, admitted that applicant has explained his previous criminal history of four cases.

6. 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."

7. 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 the main gist of allegations is of the Company of which applicant is the Managing Director not having allocated plot to the informant in terms of agreement dated 10.02.2015. The aspect of a civil dispute being given a criminal colour would require consideration by the Trial Court. It is admitted that previous criminal history of four cases of applicant has been explained and is under incarceration since 31.12.2024.

8. 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.

9. Let applicant, Ravindra Kumar Yadav, 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 :- 21.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Mishra,Aman Prakash,Pranjal Krishna,Rajeev Kumar Singh,Veer Bahadur Lal Srivasta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party no. 2 stands dispensed with.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0023 of 2024 under Sections 409 & 420 IPC, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is shown as Managing Director of M/s RSS Greenlan INFRA Pvt. Ltd and had induced the informant to book a plot with the said Company. It is alleged that despite eight years having passed, neither is any plot being allocated to the informant nor has any money been returned.

4. It is also submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and even otherwise from a bare perusal of the FIR, contents indicate only civil dispute being unnecessarily given a criminal colour. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of four cases pertaining to same sections has already been explained while applicant is under incarceration since 31.12.2024.

5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that the aspect of civil dispute between the parties is entirely separate from the aspect of cheating and fraud which has been imputed against the applicant as indicated in the FIR. It is submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. It is, however, admitted that applicant has explained his previous criminal history of four cases.

6. 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."

7. 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 the main gist of allegations is of the Company of which applicant is the Managing Director not having allocated plot to the informant in terms of agreement dated 10.02.2015. The aspect of a civil dispute being given a criminal colour would require consideration by the Trial Court. It is admitted that previous criminal history of four cases of applicant has been explained and is under incarceration since 31.12.2024.

8. 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.

9. Let applicant, Ravindra Kumar Yadav, 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 :- 21.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench