Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23925 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2829 of 2025 Applicant :- Ikrana @ Irfana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh 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 whose counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Despite notice to the informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 476 of 2024 under Sections 137 (2), 123, 127 (3) of BNS & under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Bachhrawan, District Raebareli. 3. As per contents of FIR which was lodged against unknown persons, the informant's minor daughter and reportedly vanished on 18.08.2024 while she was on the way to school. 4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against her only on account of statement of the informant and the alleged victim indicating that it was the applicant in connivance with two other males who abducted the minor and kept her in their illegal custody. It is submitted that the statement of informant and the victim clearly indicate improbability of the same since illegal custody of the minor is said to have been at the Charbagh Railway Station. It is submitted that the victim and the informant have refused medical examination of the victim. Applicant is under incarceration since 17.08.2024 without any previous criminal history. 5. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that the statement of informant and victim clearly implicate applicant in sections imputed against them. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 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. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that FIR was lodged against unknown persons with applicant being taken into custody only on the basis of statement of informant and the victim. The probability or improbability of the allegations levelled would be subject matter of evidence although they do indicate that the applicant allegedly kept the victim under illegal custody at the Charbagh Railway Station. Admittedly, applicant does not have any previous criminal history. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant- Ikrana @ Irfana involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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 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 her counsel. In case of her 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 her 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 :- 25.4.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench