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

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 338, 336 (3), 317 (2), 317(4) B.N.S. & Section 66-D Information Technology Act, P.S. Laliya, District Balrampur.

4. As per contents of FIR which was filed against unnamed persons, the incident is said to have taken place on 30.12.2024 at about 01:36 AM when a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP82PE4248 being driven by one person and accompanied by two other persons was filled up with petrol but the payment thereof was not made.

5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that although the FIR indicates only three persons being occupants of the vehicle and a recovery memo indicates four persons being named in the recovery allegedly on 14.01.2025. It is submitted that applicant has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co- accused. His previous criminal history cases has been explained.

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant has been clearly implicated in the recovery as indicated in the recovery memo dated

14.01.2025. It is, however, admitted that applicant's name has been introduced on the basis of confessional statement.

7. 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."

8. 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 applicant's name has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co- accused. The discrepancy of number of persons indicated in the FIR and the recovery memo would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained while he is under incarceration since 28.01.2025.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant- Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Yadav 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 30.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 08 of 2025, under Sections 318 (4), 316 (2), 338, 336 (3), 317 (2), 317(4) B.N.S. & Section 66-D Information Technology Act, P.S. Laliya, District Balrampur.

4. As per contents of FIR which was filed against unnamed persons, the incident is said to have taken place on 30.12.2024 at about 01:36 AM when a vehicle bearing Registration No. UP82PE4248 being driven by one person and accompanied by two other persons was filled up with petrol but the payment thereof was not made.

5. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that although the FIR indicates only three persons being occupants of the vehicle and a recovery memo indicates four persons being named in the recovery allegedly on 14.01.2025. It is submitted that applicant has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co- accused. His previous criminal history cases has been explained.

6. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant has been clearly implicated in the recovery as indicated in the recovery memo dated

14.01.2025. It is, however, admitted that applicant's name has been introduced on the basis of confessional statement.

7. 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."

8. 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 applicant's name has been introduced only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co- accused. The discrepancy of number of persons indicated in the FIR and the recovery memo would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained while he is under incarceration since 28.01.2025.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant- Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Yadav 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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 :- 30.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench