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

1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 353 of 2024 under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 191 (2), 115 (2), 352 & 351 (3) BNS and 3/5/21/23 of Buds Act, P.S. Bangarmau, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicants were instrumental in inducing the informant and his family members into investing in Arbaaz Enterprises and with one Shahbaz Khan but neither any principal amount nor any interest thereupon was ever returned.

4. It is submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against them only on account of the fact that they induced the informant to make investment with Arbaaz Enterprises and co-accused Shahbaz Khan. It is submitted that there is no allegation of applicants being beneficiary or any indirect payment being made into their accounts. It is submitted that in similar matters, applicants have already been enlarged on bail in Bail Applications No. 11042 of 2024, 12223 of 2024, 13234 of 2024, 12529 of 2024, 2535 of 2025, 10003 of 2024, 11225 of 2024. It is submitted that applicants, Ayazuddin @ Ayaz, Anwaruddin and Ajharuddeen are under incarceration since 16.08.2024, 02.09.2024 16.08.2024, respectively and their previous criminal history have already been explained.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that a complicity of applicants is clearly evident in view of the fact the amounts invested were subsequently transferred into accounts of applicants. It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history of applicants have been explained in similar matters in which they have already been enlarged on bail.

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 only role attributed to the applicants is of alluring the informant and his family members into investing with Arbaaz Enterprises and co-accused Shahbaz Khan. There does not appear to be any direct investment into the bank accounts of applicants. Previous criminal history has already been explained and their bail orders in similar circumstances have already been annexed as indicated hereinabove.

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 applicants- Ayazuddin @ Ayaz, Anwaruddin and Ajharuddeen involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 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 applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 353 of 2024 under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 191 (2), 115 (2), 352 & 351 (3) BNS and 3/5/21/23 of Buds Act, P.S. Bangarmau, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicants were instrumental in inducing the informant and his family members into investing in Arbaaz Enterprises and with one Shahbaz Khan but neither any principal amount nor any interest thereupon was ever returned.

4. It is submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against them only on account of the fact that they induced the informant to make investment with Arbaaz Enterprises and co-accused Shahbaz Khan. It is submitted that there is no allegation of applicants being beneficiary or any indirect payment being made into their accounts. It is submitted that in similar matters, applicants have already been enlarged on bail in Bail Applications No. 11042 of 2024, 12223 of 2024, 13234 of 2024, 12529 of 2024, 2535 of 2025, 10003 of 2024, 11225 of 2024. It is submitted that applicants, Ayazuddin @ Ayaz, Anwaruddin and Ajharuddeen are under incarceration since 16.08.2024, 02.09.2024 16.08.2024, respectively and their previous criminal history have already been explained.

5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that a complicity of applicants is clearly evident in view of the fact the amounts invested were subsequently transferred into accounts of applicants. It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history of applicants have been explained in similar matters in which they have already been enlarged on bail.

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 only role attributed to the applicants is of alluring the informant and his family members into investing with Arbaaz Enterprises and co-accused Shahbaz Khan. There does not appear to be any direct investment into the bank accounts of applicants. Previous criminal history has already been explained and their bail orders in similar circumstances have already been annexed as indicated hereinabove.

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 applicants- Ayazuddin @ Ayaz, Anwaruddin and Ajharuddeen involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench