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

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12478 of 2024 Applicant :- Kalawati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1- State and perused the record. Despite revision of list, no one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Crime No.85 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dahi, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused were instrumental in fabrication of succession of applicant on which basis, registered sale-deeds of plot in question were executed thereby depriving the informant of her valuable property.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that she in fact executed registered sale-deeds with regard to her own property on the basis of succession since her name was already entered into in revenue records. It is submitted that an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is further submitted that till date the informant has not sought any declaration with regard to cancellation of registered sale-deeds executed by applicant who is under incarceration since 30.07.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that as per contents of FIR and other material collected, the applicant alongwith pradhan was instrumental in creation of fabricated documents indicating her succession of one Laximan son of Puncham and not Laxman son of Purvi and on that basis has executed sale-deeds. It however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that allegations have been levelled against applicant of having collaborated with Pradhan fabricating succession certificates and executing registered sale-deed on that account. It has been submitted that till date no suit for cancellation or declaration has been filed with regard to the aforesaid sale- deeds. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 30.07.2024.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant, Kalawati, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against 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 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 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Subodh/-

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12478 of 2024 Applicant :- Kalawati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1- State and perused the record. Despite revision of list, no one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Crime No.85 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dahi, District Unnao.

3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused were instrumental in fabrication of succession of applicant on which basis, registered sale-deeds of plot in question were executed thereby depriving the informant of her valuable property.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that she in fact executed registered sale-deeds with regard to her own property on the basis of succession since her name was already entered into in revenue records. It is submitted that an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is further submitted that till date the informant has not sought any declaration with regard to cancellation of registered sale-deeds executed by applicant who is under incarceration since 30.07.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that as per contents of FIR and other material collected, the applicant alongwith pradhan was instrumental in creation of fabricated documents indicating her succession of one Laximan son of Puncham and not Laxman son of Purvi and on that basis has executed sale-deeds. It however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that allegations have been levelled against applicant of having collaborated with Pradhan fabricating succession certificates and executing registered sale-deed on that account. It has been submitted that till date no suit for cancellation or declaration has been filed with regard to the aforesaid sale- deeds. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 30.07.2024.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant, Kalawati, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against 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 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 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Subodh/-