IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; it should not be withheld as punishment, especially when the accused poses no flight risk or threat to witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today by the first informant is taken on record.

2. Second supplementary affidavit filed today by the applicant is also taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Maya Tiwari with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. -0234 of 2023, under Sections -406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, & 120-B I.P.C., Section-66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station -Sarai Khwaja, District -Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the allegation in the FIR as well as statement of first informant, amount about Rs.10,00,000/-was transferred in the account of the applicant as well as her husband and daughter, but major part of that amount, amounting to Rs.8,70,000/-had already been transferred in the account of the first informant. It is further submitted that though in the agreement between the applicant and the first informant, total amount of four cheques is about Rs.5,20,500/-but the applicant has transferred more amount than the amount of cheque. It is further submitted that applicant was herself cheated by co-accused Santosh Kumar Semwal, who during investigation was found to be main accused and who had prepared the forged work order alleged to be issued from PMO and sent to the Whatsapp number of the applicant which applicant bonafidely forwarded to the first informant. Further, it has been submitted that applicant is a lady and she has been in jail since 12.10.2023 and in support of his contention, applicant has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 observed that object of bail is to secure the attendance of prisoner at trial and the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Lastly, it has been submitted that the co-accused Santosh Kumar Semwal, Abhishek Tiwari and Brijesh Srivastava, have already been released on bail by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, she is also entitled to be released on bail.

6. However, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is undisputed that the forged work order was sent from the Whatsapp number of the applicant and amount of Rs.10,00,000/-was transferred in her account as well as in the account of her husband and her daughter and she misrepresented the applicant as Higher Officer in PMO. It is further submitted that if the applicant was duped by co-accused Santosh Kumar Semwal then the applicant should have filed police complaint against him.

7. Considering the rival submission of parties and on perusal of record, it appears that an amount of about Rs.8,70,000/-has already been transferred in the account of first informant prior to lodging the FIR and in the agreement entered into between the applicant and the first informant, the amount of cheque is only Rs.5,20,500/-against which the applicant transferred more than Rs.8,70,000/-in the account of first informant.

8. The Apex Court in the case of GudiKanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1971 (1) SCC 240 had observed that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment as the requirement of bail is merely to secure the attendance of prisoners at trial. The Apex Court again in the case of Nikesh Tara Chand Shah Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1 observed in paragraph no.19 that purpose of object to bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to apply in the solution of the question whether a bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the p