Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22727 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3394 of 2025 Applicant :- Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Ramesh Chandra Gupta 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. 29 of 2024 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao. As per contents of FIR, the primary allegation levelled against the applicant is of selling urea without authorization or license. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the shop from where the alleged urea has been recovered, in fact does not belong to the applicant at all. It is submitted that even otherwise the maximum sentence imposable is one year with the offence is being bailable as has been held by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in anticipatory bail application No. 4344 of 2021, Daudayal Sharma versus State of U.P. and others by the applicant and is under incarceration since 8th April, 2025 without any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that urea in fact was recovered from applicant's shop and he was unable to produce any authorization or license with regard to same. 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 a perusal of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Daudayal Sharma versus State of U.P. and others that the aforesaid provisions were amended by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act 1981 which lost its efficacy whereafter earlier provisions came into existence which made the offence bailable. The applicant is under incarceration since 8th April, 2025 without any previous criminal history. The aspect of ownership of shop from where recovery was made would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. 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, Pratap Singh, 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, 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 him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench