Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20241 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3044 of 2025 Applicant :- Bhawnath Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Dwivedi,Kartikeya Dwivedi 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. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Crime No.44 of 2025, under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C registered at Police Station Sonwa, District Shrawasti. 3. As per contents of FIR, allegations levelled against him is that he has procured service in the police department in the year 1994 on the basis of forged educational certificates. 4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him only account of complaint made by a person with whom he is having property dispute. It is submitted that even in the year 1994, applicant had submitted his educational qualification and had been provided appointment only after with due verification of the same. It is submitted that FIR therefore is highly belated having been lodged in the year 2025. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and investigation is yet ongoing. It is also submitted that educational certificates even otherwise do not come within the scope of a valuable security to attract the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that investigation is still ongoing and during the course of investigation also there is no corroboration with regard to genuineness of the educational certificates on the basis of which applicant was provided employment in the year 1994. 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 admittedly was employed in the police department in the year 1994. The FIR has been lodged in the year 2025 without any explanation with regard to such considerable delay. The aspect of forgery pertaining to educational certificates coming within the scope of Section 468 IP|C would be a subject matter of evidence. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 13.03.2025. Investigation is said to be still pending. 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. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant, Bhawnath Yadav, 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 sufficient 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 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 :- 10.4.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench