Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33530 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4911 of 2025 Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Atul Verma,Gangeshwar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Atul Verma and Mrs. Suniti Sachan, learned counsels 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.181 of 2025, under Sections 112(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. 3. As per contents of FIR, a police team acting upon information is said to have apprehended the applicant with various admit cards allegedly in his possession which as per FIR were utilized for purposes of impersonation of actual examinees in the examination of Assistant Professor said to be held on 16/17.04.2025. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that the entire alleged recovery has been planted which would be evident from the fact that the applicant was picked up by the police concerned on 18.04.2025 at about 7.00 A.M. due to which a missing persons report was registered on 19.04.2025 whereafter the present FIR has been lodged on 21.04.2025. It is submitted that even otherwise there is no allegation levelled against the applicant that he participated or facilitated impersonation of the actual examinees. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained and applicant is under incarceration since 20.04.2025 with actual arrest taking place on 18.04.2025. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that recovery from the applicant clearly indicates his complicity in allegation levelled against him. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of one case has been explained. 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 there is certain discrepancy in the date and time of arrest of applicant which may be required to be examined with evidence. The aspect of planting of alleged recovery from the applicant would be consequent to such examination. Investigation in the matter still ongoing in which applicant undertakes to cooperate. 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. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant, Vipin Kumar Yadav 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 :- 30.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench