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, Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0601 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B of IPC, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused who were instrumental in deceiving the informant of a substantial amount of money whereafter a sale deed was registered and executed in favour of informant who obtained knowledge that property indicated in the sale deed did not belong to the vendor.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from a perusal of FIR where the entire gist of allegation is worked upon the applicant whose role indicated is only of having introduced the informant to the owner of property who subsequently executed a registered sale deed in favour of the informant. It is submitted that applicant is neither the vendor, vendee nor any the marginal witness in the said sale deed.

5. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to bail application of co-accused Sanskar Pandey with Bail Application No. 5833 of 2023 in which bail was granted to co-accused primarily on the admission that parties have entered into a settlement whereby the substantial amount has already been returned to informant.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that although the settlement is admitted but entire amount has not yet been paid and cheques which were issued in favour of informant were dishonored. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been disclosed.

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's role indicated in the FIR is only of having introduced the informant with the alleged owner of property whereafter a registered sale deed has also been executed in favour of informant. Bail application of co- accused Sanskar Pandey indicates a settlement having been arrived at between the parties. The aspect of a civil litigation being given a criminal colour would also require consideration. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and is under incarceration since 16.01.2025.

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. Let applicant, Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Rajesh Chandra Pandey, 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 :- 5.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0601 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B of IPC, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused who were instrumental in deceiving the informant of a substantial amount of money whereafter a sale deed was registered and executed in favour of informant who obtained knowledge that property indicated in the sale deed did not belong to the vendor.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from a perusal of FIR where the entire gist of allegation is worked upon the applicant whose role indicated is only of having introduced the informant to the owner of property who subsequently executed a registered sale deed in favour of the informant. It is submitted that applicant is neither the vendor, vendee nor any the marginal witness in the said sale deed.

5. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to bail application of co-accused Sanskar Pandey with Bail Application No. 5833 of 2023 in which bail was granted to co-accused primarily on the admission that parties have entered into a settlement whereby the substantial amount has already been returned to informant.

6. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that although the settlement is admitted but entire amount has not yet been paid and cheques which were issued in favour of informant were dishonored. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been disclosed.

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's role indicated in the FIR is only of having introduced the informant with the alleged owner of property whereafter a registered sale deed has also been executed in favour of informant. Bail application of co- accused Sanskar Pandey indicates a settlement having been arrived at between the parties. The aspect of a civil litigation being given a criminal colour would also require consideration. The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and is under incarceration since 16.01.2025.

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. Let applicant, Rajesh Kumar Pandey @ Rajesh Chandra Pandey, 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 :- 5.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench