Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12746 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44833 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Mishra Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J. Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyam Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Mohd. Rashid under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 302 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Deedarganj District- Azamgarh during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Azamgarh vide order dated 19.11.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case during the investigation. It is further submitted that the First Information Report dated 16.11.2023 has been lodged against the applicant and four other named persons alleging that they received Rs.8,34,000/- in the bank account as well as in cash from the informant on the false promise of procuring an employment. It is further submitted that the co-accused Vijendra Kumar Maurya returned the total amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- in the bank account of wife of the first informant on 04.10.2019 and 05.10.2019. It is further submitted that in the present case appointment letter has been received by the first informant on WhatsApp. It is further submitted that there is no pre-summoning evidence till today with regard to the offence punishable under section 467 of I.P.C., other offences are punishable up-to seven years of imprisonment. It is further submitted that other co-accused Arvind Maurya, Virendra Kumar Maurya, Pradeep Kumar, Vijendra Kumar Maurya, has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15460 of 2024, 29698 of 2024 and 30106 of 2024, vide order dated 23.04.2024, 21.08.2024 and 28.08.2024 respectively. He has next argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2024, having no previous criminal history nor there is any likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of released on bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.] Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Mohd. Rashid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) 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 of Cr.P.C. (iv) 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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Ishan Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad