Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22269 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3281 of 2025 Applicant :- Arpana Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Puttu Lal Misra 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 Case Crime No.0707 of 2024 under Sections 309(4), 317(2), 345(3), 61(2) of BNS, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya. 3. As per contents of FIR which has been filed against unknown persons, the incident is said to have taken place on 27.12.2024 at about 04:40 when two unidentified persons are said to have looted the informant with certain amount of currency notes. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her only on account of the fact that she is the wife of main accused Chandan Yadav who was allegedly apprehended by the police recovery of stolen currency notes. It is submitted that applicant even as per investigation is not involved in the allegations levelled in the FIR and had no knowledge with regard to the nature of currency notes which were allegedly recovered from her. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history but is under incarceration since 14.01.2025. 5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that applicant was apprehended on the basis of confessional statement of accused Chandan Yadav and one Sonu who were involved in the offence and recovery has also been effected from the applicant. It is, however, admitted that 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 sole basis of apprehending applicant is the recovery of currency notes allegedly stolen by two accused Chandan Yadav and Sonu. The aspect of applicant being aware of the fact that the currency notes in her possession were stolen or not and the aspect itself of alleged recovery of currency notes would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 14.01.2025 without 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- Arpana Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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 her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench