Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21402 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2270 of 2025 Applicant :- Salman Rayeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anamika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. 3. As per office report, despite notice to complainant, no-one has put in appearance on her behalf. 4. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.109 of 2024 under sections 363, 366, 120-B I.P.C. and 16/17 of POCSO Act, P.S. Aaspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh. 5. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 25.04.2024 at 08:15 A.M. when grand daughter of informant reportedly went missing. Suspicion has been cast upon main accused Shahrukh. Another co-accused Riyaz had aided him. It is submitted that no offence under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. is made out in view of the statements of victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Role of the applicant is quite distinct from the role of co-accused Riyaz and Shahrukh. Applicant has been falsely implicated and has no previous criminal history. He is in jail since 29.12.2024. Co-accused Sanne has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application No.7134 of 2024. 6. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but could not dispute aforesaid factual aspects as submitted by learned counsel for applicant. 8. 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." 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, in view of fact that applicant has no criminal history; statements of victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; lack of corroborative evidence; the period for which the applicant is in jail; co-accused Sanne has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application No.7134 of 2024, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 11. Let applicant Salman Rayeen, involved in 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 he/she 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/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 :- 16.4.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench