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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to FIR/ Case Crime No.237 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 316(5) BNS, Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is instrumental in uploading geo-tag photographs of allegedly fully constructed houses of beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna whereas the actual houses were only semi-constructed.

4. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him with only allegation that he has sent photographs of fully constructed houses although the same brought semi-constructed houses. It is submitted that there is no allegation of applicant being beneficiary and, therefore, the Sections imputed against him would not be made out. It is submitted that even as per statement of the informant, the third installment of amount due to the beneficiary after complete construction of the property has not yet been paid and, therefore, also the said Sections are not imputed. It is submitted that the applicant is fully cooperating in the investigation and his previous criminal history of single case has already been explained in paragraph 23 of the affidavit filed in support of application while applicant is under incarceration since 19.02.2025. It is submitted that charges has not yet been filed in the present case.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that the aspect of complicity of applicant is clearly made out from the allegations levelled in the FIR with an effort indicated of utilising Government money without proper constructions. It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history has already been explained.

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 sole allegation levelled against applicant is of uploading photographs of fully constructed houses whereas the houses of beneficiaries were in fact semi- constructed. There is no allegation against applicant of having been beneficiary of the aforesaid aspect. He is under incarceration since 19.02.2025 with previous criminal history already having been explained.

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, Deepak Sahani, 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 :- 9.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to FIR/ Case Crime No.237 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 316(5) BNS, Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is instrumental in uploading geo-tag photographs of allegedly fully constructed houses of beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna whereas the actual houses were only semi-constructed.

4. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him with only allegation that he has sent photographs of fully constructed houses although the same brought semi-constructed houses. It is submitted that there is no allegation of applicant being beneficiary and, therefore, the Sections imputed against him would not be made out. It is submitted that even as per statement of the informant, the third installment of amount due to the beneficiary after complete construction of the property has not yet been paid and, therefore, also the said Sections are not imputed. It is submitted that the applicant is fully cooperating in the investigation and his previous criminal history of single case has already been explained in paragraph 23 of the affidavit filed in support of application while applicant is under incarceration since 19.02.2025. It is submitted that charges has not yet been filed in the present case.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that the aspect of complicity of applicant is clearly made out from the allegations levelled in the FIR with an effort indicated of utilising Government money without proper constructions. It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history has already been explained.

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 sole allegation levelled against applicant is of uploading photographs of fully constructed houses whereas the houses of beneficiaries were in fact semi- constructed. There is no allegation against applicant of having been beneficiary of the aforesaid aspect. He is under incarceration since 19.02.2025 with previous criminal history already having been explained.

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, Deepak Sahani, 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 :- 9.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench