Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16587 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2454 of 2025 Applicant :- Aneesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amrit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.42 of 2024 under Sections 305B, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) of B.N.S., P.S. GRP Gonda, District Gonda. 3. As per contents of first information report, recovery is said to have been effected on 20.09.2024 on a tip off of police informer and acting upon that, applicant along with co-accused was arrested with recovery of stolen mobile phone being shown from his person. 4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and the present F.I.R. is a result of earlier first information lodged as Case Crime No.33 of 2024 under Sections 379, 411 and 413 I.P.C. registered at P.S. GRP Gonda, District Gonda. 5. It has been submitted that a perusal of recovery memo also makes it evident that charges levelled against applicant are unbelievable since the recovery is said to have been effected on 19.09.2024 at the instance of police informer. It has further been submitted that there was no occasion for such recovery from applicant after more than three months of it being reported stolen. It is also submitted that except for aforesaid cases, the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that stolen mobile phone has clearly been recovered from the person of applicant. On the basis of instructions, however, he does not dispute that except for aforesaid cases, there is no previous criminal history of applicant. 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 Case Crime No.33 of 2024 has been lodged against unknown persons after almost one and a half months from the date of alleged occurrence and there does not appear to be any cogent explanation for the same. Present Case Crime No.42 of 2024 indicates recovery from applicant of alleged stolen mobile phone after more than three months at the instance of police informer. It has been admitted that the applicant does not have any other previous criminal history, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of 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 Aneesh, involved in 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 of BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench