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

Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Supplementary and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused on record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.620 of 2024 under Sections 3/5/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

4. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 11.09.2024 when a police party acting upon information received is said to have intercepted one Bolero vehicle and apprehended the applicant alongwith co- accused from whose person, illegal fire arm was recovered alongwith certain currency notes.

5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that improbability of the charges are evident from the fact that although as per information, the applicant alongwith co-accused was traveling to a certain place to sell stolen ornaments but no such ornament was found on the person of applicant. It is submitted that country made pistol have in fact been planted upon the applicant only to implicate him in this case. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph-18 of the affidavit filed in support of application in which applicant has been enlarged on bail in all cases.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that apart from illegal fire arm, in fact a yellow metal has also been recovered from the applicant.

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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that the recovery has been effected from applicant on the basis of some information supplied by a police informant. Although the recovery memo indicates and illegal country made weapon having been recovered from the applicant alongwith certain yellow metal, the laboratory analysis report was not produced. It also appears that identification of ornaments has also not been made by the trader from whom it is reportedly stolen. The applicant is under incarceration since 11.09.2024 and his previous criminal history has already been explained.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji, 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 :- 25.3.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Supplementary and rejoinder affidavits filed today are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused on record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.620 of 2024 under Sections 3/5/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

4. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 11.09.2024 when a police party acting upon information received is said to have intercepted one Bolero vehicle and apprehended the applicant alongwith co- accused from whose person, illegal fire arm was recovered alongwith certain currency notes.

5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that improbability of the charges are evident from the fact that although as per information, the applicant alongwith co-accused was traveling to a certain place to sell stolen ornaments but no such ornament was found on the person of applicant. It is submitted that country made pistol have in fact been planted upon the applicant only to implicate him in this case. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained in paragraph-18 of the affidavit filed in support of application in which applicant has been enlarged on bail in all cases.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that apart from illegal fire arm, in fact a yellow metal has also been recovered from the applicant.

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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that the recovery has been effected from applicant on the basis of some information supplied by a police informant. Although the recovery memo indicates and illegal country made weapon having been recovered from the applicant alongwith certain yellow metal, the laboratory analysis report was not produced. It also appears that identification of ornaments has also not been made by the trader from whom it is reportedly stolen. The applicant is under incarceration since 11.09.2024 and his previous criminal history has already been explained.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji, 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 :- 25.3.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench