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. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.733 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, applicant is reported to be a Director of Company bearing name of Jewel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. It has been averred in F.I.R. that applicant along with her husband Saurabh Kumar who is the major share holder of the Company induced informant to invest in the Company upon promise of share holding in the Company to the tune of 50% and for return of money, which has not been adhered to.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and she was a Non-Executive Director in the Company with major share holdings being of her husband Saurabh Kumar. It is submitted that despite fact that allegations have been levelled with regard to Company, the Company has not been nominated in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to legal notice dated 28.10.2021 which has been sent to Company and to co-accused Saurabh Kumar alleging offence under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is therefore submitted that the same clearly indicates that notice has not been sent to applicant and efforts were made for return of money to informant. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.01.2025 and does not have any previous criminal history. It is also submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. simultaneously which is impermissible.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that even as per admission of applicant, she is a Director in the Company which has swindled F.D. amount of informant. He however does not have any intimation with regard to legal notice dated 28.10.2021 but admits that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that while lodging of F.I.R., informant appears not to have disclosed the aspect of legal notice dated 28.10.2021 which has been sent to the Company and to the main accused Saurabh Kumar. The applicant is said to be a Non-Executive Director in the Company and is under incarceration since 26.01.2025 without any previous criminal history. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

9. Let applicant Preeti Verma, involved in 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 he/she 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/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 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/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV 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 and perused the record.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.733 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, applicant is reported to be a Director of Company bearing name of Jewel Infotech Pvt. Ltd. It has been averred in F.I.R. that applicant along with her husband Saurabh Kumar who is the major share holder of the Company induced informant to invest in the Company upon promise of share holding in the Company to the tune of 50% and for return of money, which has not been adhered to.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and she was a Non-Executive Director in the Company with major share holdings being of her husband Saurabh Kumar. It is submitted that despite fact that allegations have been levelled with regard to Company, the Company has not been nominated in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to legal notice dated 28.10.2021 which has been sent to Company and to co-accused Saurabh Kumar alleging offence under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is therefore submitted that the same clearly indicates that notice has not been sent to applicant and efforts were made for return of money to informant. The applicant is under incarceration since 26.01.2025 and does not have any previous criminal history. It is also submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 406 & 420 I.P.C. simultaneously which is impermissible.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that even as per admission of applicant, she is a Director in the Company which has swindled F.D. amount of informant. He however does not have any intimation with regard to legal notice dated 28.10.2021 but admits that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that while lodging of F.I.R., informant appears not to have disclosed the aspect of legal notice dated 28.10.2021 which has been sent to the Company and to the main accused Saurabh Kumar. The applicant is said to be a Non-Executive Director in the Company and is under incarceration since 26.01.2025 without any previous criminal history. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

9. Let applicant Preeti Verma, involved in 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 he/she 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/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 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/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench