Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28270 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3031 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Pratap Pandey 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. As per office report dated 24.04.2025, informant has been served but has not put in appearance. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.194 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(VA) SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. As per contents of FIR, applicant stands accused of enticing away the minor daughter of informant. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the statement of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS which is a clear contradiction to allegations levelled against applicant and in which she has clearly indicated that she voluntarily left her home. It is submitted that the provisions of SC/ST Act also are not made out against the applicant who without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 05.10.2024. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the said facts. 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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although allegations of enticing away minor daughter of informant has been levelled against applicant but the same does not appear to be corroborated the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. Medical report also does not corroborate the same. The applicability of SC/ST Act in the light of statement of victim would require consideration. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history he is under incarceration since 05.10.2024. 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, Sandeep involved in the 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her 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 :- 14.5.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench