Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19992 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3161 of 2022 Applicant :- Satyen Dhan Ji Sawla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla,Anand Kumar Pandey,Avi Mukteshwar Nath Singh,Brijesh Kumar Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Prakarsh Pandey,Praveen Kumar Shukla,Salman Abbas,Syed Waqar Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Salman Abbas, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 3. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.360 of 2020 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow. 4. As per contents of first information report, accusation against applicant is that he was instrumental in defrauding a student from her scholarship by opening an account in her name for the purposes of its being deposited in the said account. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that leaving aside merits of the case, applicant is under incarceration since 18.12.2021 with trial at a standstill since neither complainant nor witnesses are appearing due to which bailable warrants have been issued against them and have been brought on record along with supplementary affidavit filed today. It is submitted that since the said persons did not appear even thereafter, application has been submitted by applicant on 01.04.2025 for issuance of non-bailable warrants against them. It is therefore submitted that applicant cannot be kept under incarceration interminably pending conclusion of trial when prosecution witnesses are not cooperating. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. as well as statement recorded during investigation clearly indicate role of applicant in defrauding the said student of scholarship amount. 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that despite charge sheet having been filed and applicant being under under incarceration since 18.12.2021, trial is at standstill with bailable warrants having been issued to prosecution witnesses. It appears that trial is not proceeding without any fault on part of applicant. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Satyen Dhan Ji Sawla, involved in 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 he/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 his 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 :- 9.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench