Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investi

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Singh,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Riyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Atharva Arya,Shri Kishan Prajapati Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. Despite revision of list, no-one has appeared on behalf of informant.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.53 of 2024 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 395, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand-1, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 17.02.2024 at about 01.45 p.m. when applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the labourers who were employed on informant's plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand and have also extended threats to informant and his family.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no specific allegation levelled against applicant having any complicity in allegations levelled in F.I.R. It is submitted that in fact primary dispute is that said plot has been alleged by informant to belong to him, the sale deed of which has been executed by one Raj Kumar in favour of co-accused Shivani Singh. It is submitted that applicant is neither vendor, vendee nor even a witness or a beneficiary in the said transaction and his name has been nominated on the basis of alleged confessional statement of said Raj Kumar. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of one case has been explained and he is under incarceration since 29.03.2024 with trial only at the inception. It is submitted that co-accused Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari and co-accused Avinash Singh @ Sinku have already been enlarged on bail by this court in Bail Applications numbered 5640 of 2024 and 184 of 2025.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that applicant's name has been nominated on the basis of statement of informant Ajay Singh as also with regard to confessional statement of co-accused has been complicit in allegations levelled against him. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that only general allegations of applicant along with co-accused forcibly entering upon plot of informant and causing injuries to labourers have been attributed. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. Applicant is under incarceration since 29.03.2024 with previous criminal history having been explained. 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 Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav, 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 :- 30.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pratap Singh,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Riyaz Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Atharva Arya,Shri Kishan Prajapati Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. Despite revision of list, no-one has appeared on behalf of informant.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.53 of 2024 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 395, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand-1, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 17.02.2024 at about 01.45 p.m. when applicant along with co-accused is said to have attacked the labourers who were employed on informant's plot no.1/124, Vikrant Khand and have also extended threats to informant and his family.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no specific allegation levelled against applicant having any complicity in allegations levelled in F.I.R. It is submitted that in fact primary dispute is that said plot has been alleged by informant to belong to him, the sale deed of which has been executed by one Raj Kumar in favour of co-accused Shivani Singh. It is submitted that applicant is neither vendor, vendee nor even a witness or a beneficiary in the said transaction and his name has been nominated on the basis of alleged confessional statement of said Raj Kumar. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of one case has been explained and he is under incarceration since 29.03.2024 with trial only at the inception. It is submitted that co-accused Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari and co-accused Avinash Singh @ Sinku have already been enlarged on bail by this court in Bail Applications numbered 5640 of 2024 and 184 of 2025.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that applicant's name has been nominated on the basis of statement of informant Ajay Singh as also with regard to confessional statement of co-accused has been complicit in allegations levelled against him. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that only general allegations of applicant along with co-accused forcibly entering upon plot of informant and causing injuries to labourers have been attributed. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail as indicated herein above. Applicant is under incarceration since 29.03.2024 with previous criminal history having been explained. 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 Mukesh Kumar @ Rakesh Yadav, 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 :- 30.4.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench