SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS S-3 BA4 No. 21 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State. Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the informant. The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 15 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 328, 404 and 411 IPC, Police Station Bhimtal, District Nainital. She was granted bail on 02.04.2025. She has yet not been released. Now, the applicant has filed a modification to release the applicant on her personal bond or on furnishing two reliable sureties. This modification is objected to by the learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the informant. It is stated that earlier when the applicant was released on bail, she produced the sureties, but they did not turn up for verification. Thereafter, having considered the condition of the applicant and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Re, Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail,(2024) 10 SCC 685, this Court granted fifteen days interim bail to the applicant. She produced sureties, who were found not genuine and an FIR has been lodged against them. Third time again, the applicant produced the sureties. They were also not reliable. They claimed that they were nephew of the applicant, but that was not found true. What is stated on behalf of the State as well as the informant is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Bail is a rule and jail is an exception and it is more painful that a person, who has been granted bail would not come out of custody due to want of surety. But, then it is also admitted in the instant case that one of the co-accused, who was released on bail has absconded. So, on the one hand, when the personal liberty of the applicant is respected, at the same time, the wider interest of justice has also to be protected to the extent of ensuring that the applicant would appear during trial. It is stated that the matter is fixed for 13.08.2025 for examination of the applicant under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when one co-accused has absconded and three times when the applicant produced the sureties, they were not genuine, the applicant may not be released on personal bond. The bail order may remain as such. Therefore, there is no reason to modify the order. The modification application is rejected. However, if the applicant produces sureties once again, the concerned court may also get the verification done through Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, who can in turn take assistance of the Probation Officer to ascertain the genuineness of the sureties. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 31.07.2025 Avneet/