Jhabbu @ Seth v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko

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 Case Crime No. 20 of 2025 under Section 305 (A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow. As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against unidentified person, instant incident is said to have taken place in the intervening night of 28/29th January, 2025 at about 1.00 A.M. when unidentified persons are said to have broken into the house of informant and stolen valuables along with cash. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is neither nominated in the F.I.R. nor any allegation being levelled against him and that the alleged recovery had taken place after more than three months from the alleged incident.

It is submitted that even otherwise there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery and no valuables are said to have been recovered from the applicants. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of 13 cases have already been explained. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that recovery effected from applicant clearly indicates his complicity in the allegations levelled. It is admitted that previous criminal history has already been explained. 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 unknown persons and applicant appears to have been apprehended from 14th April, 2025. The recovery memo does not indicate any recovery of any valuable from the applicant. The entire aspect would require to be considered by trial court.

Previous criminal history of applicant 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.