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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0007 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 309(6), 324(3), 351(3), 352, 317(2), 3(5) BNS, (323, 394, 426, 506, 504, 411, 34 IPC),P.S. Kotwali Rudhauli, District Ayodhya.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 02.01.2025 at about 07:11 PM when the applicant was given a lift by three unidentified persons in a vehicle but subsequently coerced the applicant into transferring Rs.71,000/- through his mobile while also stealing various valuables.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of a subsequent event dated 30.01.2025 when the applicant allegedly was apprehended with the present case being connected with the said apprehending. It is submitted that recovery memo dated 30.01.2025 even otherwise does not indicate recovery of any valuable which can be said to be connected with the present FIR particularly when no transfer of amount has taken place into the account of applicant. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter in which applicant has co-operated and has one criminal history pertaining to same incident. The applicant is under incarceration since 30.01.2025.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission both the incidents are clearly connected in view of the fact that the applicant was apprehended on 30.01.2025 and has indicated to his involvement in the present case. It is submitted that applicant has co-operated during the course of investigation whereafter charge-sheet was filed.

6. 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."

7. 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 FIR has been lodged against an unidentified persons and that applicant has been shown involved only on the basis of is being apprehended on 30.01.2025. The recovery memo also indicates nomination of applicant only on the basis of his alleged confessional statement without any recovery associated with the present FIR. The said aspect, however, would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is said to have co-operated during the course of investigation.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Abhishake Dubey 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNSS. (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 BNSS. (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 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 in accordance with law. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Subodh/-

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0007 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 309(6), 324(3), 351(3), 352, 317(2), 3(5) BNS, (323, 394, 426, 506, 504, 411, 34 IPC),P.S. Kotwali Rudhauli, District Ayodhya.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 02.01.2025 at about 07:11 PM when the applicant was given a lift by three unidentified persons in a vehicle but subsequently coerced the applicant into transferring Rs.71,000/- through his mobile while also stealing various valuables.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only on account of a subsequent event dated 30.01.2025 when the applicant allegedly was apprehended with the present case being connected with the said apprehending. It is submitted that recovery memo dated 30.01.2025 even otherwise does not indicate recovery of any valuable which can be said to be connected with the present FIR particularly when no transfer of amount has taken place into the account of applicant. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter in which applicant has co-operated and has one criminal history pertaining to same incident. The applicant is under incarceration since 30.01.2025.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission both the incidents are clearly connected in view of the fact that the applicant was apprehended on 30.01.2025 and has indicated to his involvement in the present case. It is submitted that applicant has co-operated during the course of investigation whereafter charge-sheet was filed.

6. 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."

7. 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 FIR has been lodged against an unidentified persons and that applicant has been shown involved only on the basis of is being apprehended on 30.01.2025. The recovery memo also indicates nomination of applicant only on the basis of his alleged confessional statement without any recovery associated with the present FIR. The said aspect, however, would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is said to have co-operated during the course of investigation.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Abhishake Dubey 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNSS. (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 BNSS. (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 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 in accordance with law. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Subodh/-