Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19038 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10257 of 2024 Applicant :- Keshan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Ajay Kumar Tripathi 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-opposite party No.1 and perused the record. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 to 4. 2. The first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.254 of 2024 under Sections 377, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5M/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 27.04.2024 when the applicant allegedly committed sexual assault upon the minor son of the informant. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be established from the fact that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed after a period of two months from the date of incident. It is submitted that the said F.I.R. has been lodged due to previous enmity between the families. He has also adverted to the medical report to submit that the same does not corroborate allegations levelled in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 12.08.2024 without any previous criminal history. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that the averments made in the F.I.R. clearly made out a cognizable offence against the applicant. It is, however, admitted that the 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 the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged in terms of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after a period of two months from the date of incident without any cogent explanation for the same; the medical report also does not appear to corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant, who is under incarceration since 12.08.2024 without any previous criminal history, therefore, 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. 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant- Keshan Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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 of 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 of 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 :- 4.4.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench