Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27324 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 137 of 2025 Applicant :- Ritik Awasthi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Kushwaha,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Piyush Tripathi,Sandeep Kumar,Sharad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma,Ranjeet Pratap Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as Mr. Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.542 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) BNS, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of FIR, the informant was allegedly deceived by applicant on false pretext of execution of sale deed for which sale consideration was already received by him. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that only allegation levelled is of non- execution of a sale-deed, which even otherwise would not give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. Learned counsel submits that even as per allegations levelled in the FIR, Rs.8,00,000/-have already been returned by applicant to informant and only Rs.7,20,000/- remain, which also he is willing to return and gives undertaking of such return within a period of four weeks' from the date he is released from jail. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 28.10.2024 with previous criminal history already explained but trial at very inception. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the FIR also indicates the aspect of impersonation of actual owner of property apart from non-execution of sale-deed. It is however admitted that previous criminal history has already been explained. Learned counsel for informant on the basis of instructions submits that applicant may be put to strict undertaking with regard to return of balance amount. 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 primary aspect of allegation levelled against the applicant is of non-execution of sale-deed even after obtaining sale consideration in advance. The aspect of impersonation of actual owner of the property would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. 8. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for informant on the basis of instructions submits that the applicant undertakes to return the remaining amount of Rs.7,20,000/- to the informant within a period of four weeks from being released from jail. The applicant is under incarceration since 28.10.2024 with trial only at inception. 9. In case the applicant fails to adhere to his undertaking, the same may be intimated to this Court for purposes of cancellation of bail. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 12. Let applicant, Ritik Awasthi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/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/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/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 his/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 him/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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench