Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15632 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10264 of 2024 Applicant :- Mahesh Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Srivastava,Ajay Veer Singh,Dev Mani Mishra,Shrishty Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Apoorv Pandey,Gyanendra Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Apoorv Pandey, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.100 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366A, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S Fatanpur, District Pratapgarh. 3. As per contents of first information report, the Applicant allegedly enticed away minor daughter of informant and thereafter sought an amount of Rs.50,000/- and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- for locating her. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that first information report has been lodged two and a half years after the date of alleged incident, although no such date has been indicated in the first information report, the same has been intimated only in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It is also submitted that except for the evidence of one Sumitra Pal indicating circumstantial evidence of last seen, there is no other evidence linking applicant with allegations made in first information report. It is therefore submitted that there is no cogent and direct evidence against applicant who however has been under incarceration since 23.07.2023 without trial having yet commenced. 5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with submission that eye witness statement clearly indicates last seen evidence against applicant due to which his involvement in allegations levelled against him is made out. 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 the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no cogent explanation for delay of two and half years in lodging of first information report against applicant. The circumstantial evidence of last seen would also require corroboration during trial by evidence. The applicant is under incarceration since 23.07.2023 with trial having yet not commenced. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of 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 Mahesh Soni, 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 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 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, 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench