Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21103 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2902 of 2025 Applicant :- Karbabu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash 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 and perused the record. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.56 of 2025 under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Visheshwarganj, District Bahraich. 3. As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have occurred on 02.03.2025 at about 08.00 P.M. when a police party acting upon a video which was viral on social media arrested applicant on the basis that said video exhibited applicant and co-accused indulging in killing of a cow. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that arrest is not on the spot but only on the basis of some video which was available on social media. It is submitted that there was no recovery of beef from applicant. It is submitted that recovery shown from applicant is only of bone recovered with leather instead of any beef. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 05.03.2025. Co-accused, namely, Saddam has already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2652 of 2025 on 01.04.2025. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the fact that there was no recovery of beef from applicant or that he has no 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant's arrest has taken place only on account of a video which was viral on social media. There does not appear to be any recovery from applicant or that he was apprehended from the spot. The applicant is under incarceration since 05.03.2025 without any previous criminal history, as such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant Karbabu, 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 or in case of its vacancy by the C.J.M 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 :- 15.4.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench