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

3. First bail application of applicant bearing CRMBA No.1561 of 2022 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2022 however imposing condition that applicant would pay a demand draft for Rs.4,50,000/-in the name of informant prior to instituting the bail bond before court below. The said order was thereafter challenged by applicant before Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal SLP(Crl.) No.15820 of 2024 which was allowed by means of order dated 13.12.2024 remitting the matter to this Court for considering it a fresh since direction for deposit of amount could not have been passed as condition. It is in such circumstances that the Second bail application is being heard on merits.

4. As per contents of FIR, the informant's father is said to have deposited a substantial amount of money in the applicant's firm but did not receive any repayment or interest in lieu thereof. The FIR also states that for the purposes of repayment, a cheque was issued by applicant, which however was dishonoured.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and a perusal of FIR even otherwise merely indicates an unnecessary criminal colour being given to a purely civil/business transaction. It is submitted that the aspect of cheating or breach of contract would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2021 with the evidence of only first prosecution witness having been completed.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that even if dispute pertains to a civil transaction, the aspect of cheating would constitute a separate criminal dimension for which the FIR and criminal action against applicant would be maintainable. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant of one other case has been explained.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that primary gist of allegation against applicant is of not making any return on the investment made by informant's father. Both Sections 406 and 420 IPC have been imputed against the applicant. The aspect of cheating or only a breach of promise would be subject matter of consideration of trial as per evidence. The applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2021 and as per report dated 01.05.2025 submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, only one prosecution witness has been examined. Clearly there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Shiv Bahadur Maurya, involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 5.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

3. First bail application of applicant bearing CRMBA No.1561 of 2022 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2022 however imposing condition that applicant would pay a demand draft for Rs.4,50,000/-in the name of informant prior to instituting the bail bond before court below. The said order was thereafter challenged by applicant before Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal SLP(Crl.) No.15820 of 2024 which was allowed by means of order dated 13.12.2024 remitting the matter to this Court for considering it a fresh since direction for deposit of amount could not have been passed as condition. It is in such circumstances that the Second bail application is being heard on merits.

4. As per contents of FIR, the informant's father is said to have deposited a substantial amount of money in the applicant's firm but did not receive any repayment or interest in lieu thereof. The FIR also states that for the purposes of repayment, a cheque was issued by applicant, which however was dishonoured.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and a perusal of FIR even otherwise merely indicates an unnecessary criminal colour being given to a purely civil/business transaction. It is submitted that the aspect of cheating or breach of contract would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2021 with the evidence of only first prosecution witness having been completed.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that even if dispute pertains to a civil transaction, the aspect of cheating would constitute a separate criminal dimension for which the FIR and criminal action against applicant would be maintainable. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant of one other case has been explained.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that primary gist of allegation against applicant is of not making any return on the investment made by informant's father. Both Sections 406 and 420 IPC have been imputed against the applicant. The aspect of cheating or only a breach of promise would be subject matter of consideration of trial as per evidence. The applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2021 and as per report dated 01.05.2025 submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, only one prosecution witness has been examined. Clearly there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Shiv Bahadur Maurya, involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 5.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench