Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33896 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4922 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgesh Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi 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. 74 of 2025, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC and Section 66-C, 66-D IT Act, Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli. As per contents of FIR, primary allegations have been levelled against one Sonu Pandey alias Yogendra Pandey who is said to have induced the informant for opening an account for the purposes of receiving proceeds of cyber crime. It is stated that informant was unaware of the said fact and became aware only once said account was seized. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him only on account of the fact that he is a relative of the main accused. It is submitted that even as per F.I.R., there is no allegation against applicant of inducing the informant to open the bank account. It is submitted that investigation is still ongoing and that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence in investigation, it appears that primary gist of allegation has been levelled against the main accused Sonu Pandey. That only general allegations is levelled against the applicant of being accomplice for purposes of opening bank accounts by accused persons for deposit of proceeds of cyber crime. Aforesaid aspect is required to be determined through evidence. The applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration. 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 Durgesh Pandey 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 :- 30.5.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench