Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27843 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3350 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Milan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Divyanshu Singh,Divya Tripathi,Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Prashant Chaudhary 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. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.76 of 2025 under Sections 8, 11, 13(5) of U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, P.S. Kachhauna, District Hardoi. 3. As per contents of first information report, applicant is said to be the Principal and owner of the premises from which copying and solving question papers was being conducted for the High School and Intermediate Examination. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and there was no recovery incriminating or otherwise either from the person or his premises. It is further submitted that his name has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statements of persons who were apprehended from the spot. Previous criminal history of applicant of one case has been explained. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that in fact the applicant is the owner of the premises from where the copying and solving of question papers was being conducted. It is also submitted that a total 14 persons were apprehended from the spot indulging in the said activity. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of one case against 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 although applicant is nominated as owner of the premises but there is no recovery from him and his name has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statements of person who were apprehended from the spot. Previous criminal history of applicant of one case has been explained. Co-accused Anil Kumar Singh having similar role has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court with regard to same allegations in Case Crime No.75 of 2025 vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.317 of 2025. 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 Ram Milan Singh, involved in 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/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 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/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 him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of 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 him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench