Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24326 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3597 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhishek @ Ritik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Priya Singh,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Charu Singh,Nivedita Shukla,Trideep Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.38 of 2025 under Sections 140(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.01.2025 at about 7:30 P.M. are said to have intercepted the applicant and extorted a substantial sum of money. Allegedly the Driving License and ATM Card were also taken away. 4. It is also submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which is evident on the fact that he is not identified in the FIR nor in any subsequent statement and has been introduced only during the course of investigation on the basis of ATM Card being recovered from co-accused Anurag Singh. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 26.01.2025 and single case criminal history has been explained in para 5 of the bail application. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that the applicant's name has been introduced during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the applicant's previous criminal history 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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been introduced only on the basis of recovery of ATM Card from co-accused. A single case criminal history of the applicant has already been explained and he is under incarceration since 26.01.2025. 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- Abhishek @ Ritik 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 :- 29.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench