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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 537 of 2024 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Hargoun, District Sitapur.

4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.12.2024 at about 11:16 PM when a Police party during routine checking is said to have apprehended the applicant and co-accused driving a motor cycle which was registered in the name of one Amit Kumar who had reported the said vehicle missing and for which purpose Case Crime No. 536 of 2024 had been registered. The FIR/recovery memo indicates eleven other motor cycles recovered from the applicants who as per their confession was stolen by them.

5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recoveries. It is submitted that the entire allegation is based only on the confessional statements of applicants and no identification of the recovered motor cycles has been done. The applicant is under incarceration since 23.12.2024 with no previous criminal history but with ten cases registered against him with regard to the same incident.

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed bail application with the submission that motor cycle recovered from applicant clearly bears the same chassis number as that of the vehicle which was reported stolen and for which Case Crime No. 536 of 2024 was registered against applicant. It is therefore submitted that recovery from applicant with regard to stolen motor cycles is clearly established. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history but other nine cases pertained to the same recovery.

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 applicant has been apprehended during routine checking but recovery of alleged stolen motor- cycles appears to be only on the confessional statement of applicant. It does not appear that the other recovered motor- cycles were identified by the persons from whom they were reported stolen. There also does not appear to be any independent witness of the alleged recoveries. The applicant is under incarceration since 22.12.2024 which charge-sheet already having been filed and therefore the aspect of tampering with witnesses and evidence is removed.

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- Lalit Kumar Pasi 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 537 of 2024 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 338, 336 (3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Hargoun, District Sitapur.

4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.12.2024 at about 11:16 PM when a Police party during routine checking is said to have apprehended the applicant and co-accused driving a motor cycle which was registered in the name of one Amit Kumar who had reported the said vehicle missing and for which purpose Case Crime No. 536 of 2024 had been registered. The FIR/recovery memo indicates eleven other motor cycles recovered from the applicants who as per their confession was stolen by them.

5. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recoveries. It is submitted that the entire allegation is based only on the confessional statements of applicants and no identification of the recovered motor cycles has been done. The applicant is under incarceration since 23.12.2024 with no previous criminal history but with ten cases registered against him with regard to the same incident.

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed bail application with the submission that motor cycle recovered from applicant clearly bears the same chassis number as that of the vehicle which was reported stolen and for which Case Crime No. 536 of 2024 was registered against applicant. It is therefore submitted that recovery from applicant with regard to stolen motor cycles is clearly established. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history but other nine cases pertained to the same recovery.

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 applicant has been apprehended during routine checking but recovery of alleged stolen motor- cycles appears to be only on the confessional statement of applicant. It does not appear that the other recovered motor- cycles were identified by the persons from whom they were reported stolen. There also does not appear to be any independent witness of the alleged recoveries. The applicant is under incarceration since 22.12.2024 which charge-sheet already having been filed and therefore the aspect of tampering with witnesses and evidence is removed.

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- Lalit Kumar Pasi 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 209 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench