High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. No. 28 of 2025 under Section 308(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 18th February, 2025 when two unidentified persons allegedly approached the informant identifying themselves as police personnel and seeking extortion from him on the basis of blackmailing. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that F.IR. has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicant has been taken into custody subsequently on 19th February, 2025 only on the basis of tip off by an informant. It is submitted that recovery memo does not indicate any other recovery from the applicant except for the motorcycle, key and a mobile phone which even otherwise are not associated in the crime lodged. It is submitted that an alleged fabricated police identification card is said to have been recovered from co-accused Arjun. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 20th February 2025 with one previous criminal history having already been explained. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the fact that allegedly fabricated identification card of police personnel has been recovered from the co-accused. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that F.I.R. has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicant has been taken into custody subsequently on the basis of information derived from the police informant. The aspect of recovery of motorcycle from applicant and its use in the crime alleged would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The alleged fabricated police identification card is said to have been recovered from co-accused. Previous criminal history of one case has already been explained. 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." Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Mohd. Siraj @ Raj 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 :- 16.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to F.I.R. No. 28 of 2025 under Section 308(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 18th February, 2025 when two unidentified persons allegedly approached the informant identifying themselves as police personnel and seeking extortion from him on the basis of blackmailing. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that F.IR. has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicant has been taken into custody subsequently on 19th February, 2025 only on the basis of tip off by an informant. It is submitted that recovery memo does not indicate any other recovery from the applicant except for the motorcycle, key and a mobile phone which even otherwise are not associated in the crime lodged. It is submitted that an alleged fabricated police identification card is said to have been recovered from co-accused Arjun. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 20th February 2025 with one previous criminal history having already been explained. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the fact that allegedly fabricated identification card of police personnel has been recovered from the co-accused. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that F.I.R. has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicant has been taken into custody subsequently on the basis of information derived from the police informant. The aspect of recovery of motorcycle from applicant and its use in the crime alleged would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The alleged fabricated police identification card is said to have been recovered from co-accused. Previous criminal history of one case has already been explained. 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." Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Mohd. Siraj @ Raj 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 :- 16.4.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench