Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27650 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4079 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Yadav 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. 540 of 2020 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh. As per contents of FIR, the applicant was provided appointment as Assistant Teacher on 29th August, 2016 but subsequently upon departmental inquiry it transpired that intermediate mark sheet supplied by applicant was forged document. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would also be evident from the fact that the F.I.R. is highly belated for almost four years since inquiry pertaining to appointment of the applicant was completed in 2017 itself whereby the appointment of applicant was annuled vide order dated 30th March, 2017. It is submitted that there are various discrepancies in the inquiry proceedings. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history but is under incarceration since 7th March, 2025. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the forgery of mark sheet was purely established during departmental inquiry and subsequent investigation whereafter charge sheet has been filed. It is admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 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 applicant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2016 but there does not appear to be any cogent explanation for a delay of three and half years in lodging the F.I.R. The aspect of discrepancy in departmental inquiry would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The applicant being a teacher is under incarceration since 7th March, 2025 without any previous criminal history. 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 Sanjeev Kumar 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 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench