Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24741 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10906 of 2024 Applicant :- Kausar Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. As per office report dated 15th January, 2025, the opposite party No.2 has been personally served but has not put in appearance. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 294 of 2024 under Section 137(2), 87, 74, 115(2), 351(3) BNS & 7/8 POCSO Act and Section 3/5(1) U.P. Unlawful Religious Conversion (Prohibition) Act, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 11th August, 2024 at about 12.00 A.M. when the minor daughter of informant was allegedly enticed away by the applicant and co-accused. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the statement of victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS particularly regarding role of applicant. It is submitted that main gist of allegation has been levelled against co-accused Azam who has already been enlarged on bail by trial court itself. There is no particular role attributed to the applicant except for accompanying the said co-accused Azam. It is also submitted that victim has refused medical examination. The applicant is under incarceration since 11th August, 2024 without any previous criminal history. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that statement of victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS do not indicate any substantial contradiction with eye witness account also corroborating the same. It is however admitted that medical examination was refused by the victim and that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that primary role with regard to sections imputed has been attributed to co-accused Azam who appears to have already been enlarged on bail by trial court. The aspect of any contradiction in the statement of victim would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The victim has refused medical examination. The applicant is under incarceration since 11th August, 2024 without any previous criminal history. 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." 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. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Kausar Ali 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 269 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 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 :- 30.4.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench