Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23295 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3352 of 2025 Applicant :- Asgar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Ajay Veer Singh, Advocate, which is taken on record. 1A. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.453 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya. 3. As per contents of first information report, applicant was instrumental in execution of a fraudulent agreement to sell dated 03.12.2022 by impersonation of actual owner of the property. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that the only allegation levelled against applicant is of having introduced informant with actual owner of the property and being a marginal witness in agreement to sell. It is submitted that even otherwise, an agreement to sell does not confer any title upon informant. Applicant is under incarceration since 22.12.2024 with three previous criminal history having been explained. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with submission that in fact it is applicant who is the master mind of the entire operation and it is he who introduced the informant with fake owner of the property. It is however admitted that only an agreement to sell has been executed without any subsequent sale deed being executed. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions, admits that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the only role attributed to applicant is of having introduced informant with the alleged owner of the property and being a marginal witness in the agreement to sell. The aspect of execution of subsequent sale deed would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial particularly since an agreement to sell does not confer any title upon informant. Previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained. 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 Asgar Ahmad, 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 :- 24.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench