Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22880 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3351 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankita Tiwari @ Surabhi Tiwari @ Sunaina Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Awasthi,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.700 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Hardoi, U.P. 3. As per contents of FIR, the applicant is accused of having earlier lodged an FIR against the informant under sections imputed under the POCSO Act. It is alleged that for the said purposes, the applicant had filed forged transfer certificates to corroborate her allegation that she was underage. 4. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that the present FIR is a direct result of the earlier FIR which was registered by the applicant against the informant as would be evident from the perusal of the FIR itself. It is submitted that the aspect of forged transfer certificate is subject matter of evidence particularly since applicant denies the same. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history but is under incarceration since 04.12.2024. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with the submission that for the purposes of lodging the earlier FIR against the present informant, a forged transfer certificate was submitted by the applicant. It is, however, admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the present FIR is a direct result of earlier FIR which was registered by the applicant against the present informant. The aspect of forgery of the transfer certificate produced by applicant earlier would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 04.12.2024 with trial at the very inception. It is admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant- Ankita Tiwari @ Surabhi Tiwari @ Sunaina Tiwari 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 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/ 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 :- 22.4.2025 Mohd. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench