Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26649 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3943 of 2025 Applicant :- Abhijeet Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicants, 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. 449 of 2023 under Section 406, 420, 467, 471, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki. As per contents of FIR, the applicants are shown as Directors of the company who have allegedly deceived the informant in investing substantial amount of money on the pretext of allotment of plot which has not been provided till date. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against them and that the transaction pertaining to allotment of plot was not complete due to which allotment was not made. It is submitted that an unnecessarily a criminal colour is being given to a civil dispute. However learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions received submits that in case bail is granted, the applicants will return the amount due to the informant within a period of 30 days from the date of release. Previous criminal history of 10 cases of applicant No.1 and 2 cases of applicant No.2 has been explained. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that applicants clearly are complicit in the allegations levelled against them as narrated in the F.I.R.. It is however admitted that present criminal history pertaining to similar allegations have already been explained. 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." 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 the allegations so levelled against the applicants may make out a civil aspect of litigation. However since learned counsel for applicant on the basis of instructions has undertaken to return the amount paid by the informant with the undertaking clearly being indicated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicants Abhijeet Sharma and Divya Sharma 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 :- 7.5.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench