Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25765 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3815 of 2025 Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Rai 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.824 of 2024, under Sections 310(2), 109, 61(2), 317(3) IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao. 3. As per contents of FIR, which has been lodged against three unidentified persons, the informant is said to have been robbed of valuables when the said unidentified persons barged into his house. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is neither named in the FIR nor has there being any role attributed to him even in the alleged recovery said to have taken place two days after the said incident. It is submitted that applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged information provided by police informant. He further submits that the aspect of recovery at the instance of pointing out of applicant would be subject matter of evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 12.11.2024. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application but does not dispute the fact 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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of information supplied by police informer. It does not appear that any recovery pertaining to article stolen has been made from the applicant. The aspect of recovery at the instance of pointing out is also attributed to co-accused. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Applicant is under incarceration since 12.11.2024. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant, Rinku involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her 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 :- 5.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench