Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18272 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2700 of 2025 Applicant :- Lucky @ Lakhvinder Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradyumn Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel 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. 33 of 2025 under Section 87, 137(2) BNS, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao. 3. As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against unknown person, the minor daughter of informant is said to have been enticed away. The applicant's name has subsequently emerged from the recovery of victim and her statement. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that as per statement of victim under Section 180 BNSS, she has clearly indicated the fact that applicant went away alongwith younger brother of the victim. It is submitted that main gist of the allegations has been levelled against one Roshan. He has also adverted to the fact that there is serious contradiction regarding statement of victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. He has also submitted that medical also does not support version of the victim. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of victim under Section 183 BNSS clearly indicates role of applicant in the charges levelled against him. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person. There appears to be contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It also appears that main role has been assigned to one Roshan with applicant having reported to have gone away from the place. There does not appear to be any previous criminal history of the applicant who is under incarceration since 14 February, 2005. 7. 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." 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 Lucky @ Lakhvinder Singh 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 269 BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS. (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 351 BNSS. 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 :- 2.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench