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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.3713 of 2017, Range Case No.03/2017-2018, under Section 2,9, 27, 31, 32, 35(6), 51(1) Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 26 Indian Forest Act, registered at Range name Bankati Range Dudhwa National Park, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. As per contents of complaint registered by Wild Life OfÏcials, the incident is said to have taken place on 30.04.2017 at about 09.00 A.M. when the applicant along with 100 to 150 people illegally entered the forest area and accused of cutting trees.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there was no recovery from the applicant with any independent witness. It is submitted that incident even otherwise is said to have taken place in the year 2017 without applicant being nominated in any subsequent case pertaining to the same issue. It is submitted that even otherwise the complaint does not indicate as to how the applicant was identified in a mob of 150 people. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 15.10.2024 with previous criminal history already explained in paragraph 12 of the afÏdavit filed in support of application.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant is clearly habitual of the crime of which he has been accused of since the year 2013. It is however admitted that after 2017, there does not appear to be any other such incident recorded against the applicant. Previous criminal has admittedly 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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been named collectively along with 150 people with regard to accusations levelled against him of having cut trees in the forest area. It also appears that the said incident appears to have taken place in the year 2017 without any subsequent incident being reported with involvement of applicant who is under incarceration since 15.10.2024 with previous criminal history already having been explained.

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, Baburam, 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 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 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, 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 him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.3713 of 2017, Range Case No.03/2017-2018, under Section 2,9, 27, 31, 32, 35(6), 51(1) Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 26 Indian Forest Act, registered at Range name Bankati Range Dudhwa National Park, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. As per contents of complaint registered by Wild Life OfÏcials, the incident is said to have taken place on 30.04.2017 at about 09.00 A.M. when the applicant along with 100 to 150 people illegally entered the forest area and accused of cutting trees.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there was no recovery from the applicant with any independent witness. It is submitted that incident even otherwise is said to have taken place in the year 2017 without applicant being nominated in any subsequent case pertaining to the same issue. It is submitted that even otherwise the complaint does not indicate as to how the applicant was identified in a mob of 150 people. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 15.10.2024 with previous criminal history already explained in paragraph 12 of the afÏdavit filed in support of application.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant is clearly habitual of the crime of which he has been accused of since the year 2013. It is however admitted that after 2017, there does not appear to be any other such incident recorded against the applicant. Previous criminal has admittedly 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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been named collectively along with 150 people with regard to accusations levelled against him of having cut trees in the forest area. It also appears that the said incident appears to have taken place in the year 2017 without any subsequent incident being reported with involvement of applicant who is under incarceration since 15.10.2024 with previous criminal history already having been explained.

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, Baburam, 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 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 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, 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 him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench