Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22040 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3243 of 2025 Applicant :- Leele Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 149 of 2024 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bahraich. As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled is that the applicant submitted fabricated mark sheet for the purposes of grant of licence for fair price shop. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the F.I.R. even otherwise is not maintainable at the behest of informant who is current licensee. It is submitted that earlier applicant's father was fair price shop licensee, which was cancelled and was challenged before this Court. During the course of proceedings, applicant's father passed away and the applicant was substituted in his place whereafter the writ petition was allowed granting liberty to applicant to file a fresh representation before the authorities concerned who have considered the applicant's representation but not F.I.R. not has been lodged by the authorities, which in fact has been lodged by present licensee only to stymie the consideration of applicant's representation. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 19th February, 2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the aspect of forgery of mark sheet for the purposes of obtaining fair price shop licence clearly makes out the sections imputed against the applicant. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that as per allegations levelled, no F.I.R. has been lodged by the authorities concerned and in fact has been lodged by the informant who is the present fair price shop licensee. The aspect of lodging of F.I.R. only for the purposes of prevention of consideration of applicant's representation may be respect requiring consideration. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 19th February, 2025. 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." 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. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Leele Khan 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 :- 18.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench