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

Applicant :- Abhinav Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Hari Krishna Srivastava,Nishant Singh,Sweta Swarankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradyumn Shukla Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Pradyumn Shukla, learned counsel for complainant-opposite party no.2-complainant.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.273 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Purva, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of first information report, entire property which was ancestral in nature and in which informant as well as applicant are co-sharers has been sold by means of registered sale deed dated 20.02.2024 by setting up another person impersonating informant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even as per contents of first information report the property is indicated as ancestral in which applicant also has a share. It is submitted that the sale deed was in fact executed by all the share holders of the property and the aspect of impersonation is to be established. It is submitted that co-accused Ranno Devi, Mukesh Awasthi and Gulam Mohammad have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.12.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but admits that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

6. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the Bail Application with submission that despite fact that applicant is also one of the co-sharers in the plot but the entire plot in question has been sold including the share of informant without his consent and impersonating him in the sale deed.

7. 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."

8. 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 allegation of impersonation has been levelled against all the co- sharers of the plot in question. Although learned counsel for applicant has denied the fact that the plot in question was ancestral but the said aspect is required to be considered in appropriate proceedings. The aspect of impersonation is also yet to be established. Even as per contents of F.I.R., the property is said to be ancestral in which applicant also has a share. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. It has also been submitted that unnecessarily criminal colour is being sought to be given to purely a civil dispute particularly since no suit has been filed seeking cancellation of sale deed. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.12.2024 without any previous criminal history. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant Abhinav Awasthi, 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:- (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. (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 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 of BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Abhinav Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi,Hari Krishna Srivastava,Nishant Singh,Sweta Swarankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradyumn Shukla Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Pradyumn Shukla, learned counsel for complainant-opposite party no.2-complainant.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.273 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Purva, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of first information report, entire property which was ancestral in nature and in which informant as well as applicant are co-sharers has been sold by means of registered sale deed dated 20.02.2024 by setting up another person impersonating informant.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that even as per contents of first information report the property is indicated as ancestral in which applicant also has a share. It is submitted that the sale deed was in fact executed by all the share holders of the property and the aspect of impersonation is to be established. It is submitted that co-accused Ranno Devi, Mukesh Awasthi and Gulam Mohammad have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.12.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but admits that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

6. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the Bail Application with submission that despite fact that applicant is also one of the co-sharers in the plot but the entire plot in question has been sold including the share of informant without his consent and impersonating him in the sale deed.

7. 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."

8. 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 allegation of impersonation has been levelled against all the co- sharers of the plot in question. Although learned counsel for applicant has denied the fact that the plot in question was ancestral but the said aspect is required to be considered in appropriate proceedings. The aspect of impersonation is also yet to be established. Even as per contents of F.I.R., the property is said to be ancestral in which applicant also has a share. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. It has also been submitted that unnecessarily criminal colour is being sought to be given to purely a civil dispute particularly since no suit has been filed seeking cancellation of sale deed. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.12.2024 without any previous criminal history. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant Abhinav Awasthi, 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:- (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. (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 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 of BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench