Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21230 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3082 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Rai,Devesh Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard 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.07 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Makhi, District Unnao. 4. As per contents of first information report which was lodged initially under Section 379 I.P.C., two unidentified persons reportedly stole applicant's motor cycle, cash, gold chain and a mobile phone. 5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that recovery shown from applicant does not pertain to items reportedly stolen. It is also submitted that the offences are triable by Magistrate and applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. only due to previous criminal history, which has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application as well as in supplementary affidavit filed today. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that recovery of motor cycle was with forged registration number plates due to which Section 468 I.P.C has been imposed against applicant. It is however admitted that recovered items have not yet been identified by informant. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. 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 F.I.R. had been lodged against unidentified persons and recovery allegedly made from applicant has not yet been identified by informant. The offences are triable by Magistrate and co-accused Vishal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application No.2575 of 2023; order dated 21.02.2023. Applicant's previous criminal history has been explained while he is under Incarceration since 08.01.2023 with charge sheet having been filed. 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. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Vikas Yadav, 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 :- 16.4.2025 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