Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21990 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3239 of 2025 Applicant :- Shadab Shah And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Iqbal Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.49 of 2025, under Section 309(4), 317(2) BNS registered at Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur. 3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 20.03.2025 when applicants allegedly snatched cash and mobile phone from the informant when they were giving him a lift on their motorcycle. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them which could be evident from the fact that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and the alleged recovery taken place at the instance of tip off provided by police informant does not match the snatched properties. It is submitted that the recovery memo does not indicate that the mobile phone recovered from the applicants is the same which was reportedly stolen. It is submitted that applicants do not have any previous criminal history but are under incarceration since 22.03.2025. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that recovery memo clearly indicates complicity of applicants in the allegations levelled in the FIR. It is however admitted that applicants do 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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons with recovery having been effected subsequently. However the aspect of recovered items matching the one reported stolen would be subject matter of evidence. Applicants do not have any previous criminal history and are under incarceration since 22.03.2025. 8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants 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 applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicants, Shadab Shah, Mahbub @ Babbu, Lal Mohammad @ Mohammed @ Lalwa involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 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 Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench