Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28004 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3739 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepanshu Dudeja Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Arunendra Mohan Shukla,Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant and perused the record. 2. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. 3. This first bail application has been filed with regard to FIR/ Case Crime No.185 of 2025 under Sections 384, 386, 509, 506 IPC and 67A I.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. 4. As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled against the applicant is of harassment of his wife and seeking to extort money from him as blackmail with the threat of making viral certain intimate chats and pictures. 5. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him only on account of previous matrimonial dispute between the parties. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant to submit that none of the chats brought on record indicate any aspect and extortion or blackmail as is being imputed against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 17.03.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation which is still on going. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application with the submission that the aspect of extortion are clearly made out against the applicant in the FIR which has been lodged. It is admitted that previous criminal history pertaining to same matrimonial dispute has been explained. 7. 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." 8. 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 aspects as alleged in the FIR pertaining to extortion do not appear to be made out at this stage but may be subject to investigation which is still on going and in which the applicant undertakes to cooperate. Previous criminal history pertaining to same matrimonial dispute has already been explained. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 11. Let applicant, Deepanshu Dudeja, 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 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 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, 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench