Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27846 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11696 of 2024 Applicant :- Chandraram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Suhail Kashif Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.13/2021 under section 370(1) I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana, district Barabanki. 3. As per contents of first information report, Applicant who is father of informant allegedly sold informant's wife on the pretext of calling her to the Village. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is alleged in the first information report that marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with Prince Verma in the year 2019 who was a taxi driver in district Ghaziabad. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix was sold to Sahil Pancha by applicant. It is alleged that prior to selling to Sahil Pancha, she was kept in the house of co-accused Ramu Gautam. 5. Co-accused Sahil Pancha to whom the prosecutrix was allegedly sold has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 9.12.2021 passed in Bail No.7756 of 2021. Other co-accused Pappu Bhai Sharma and Rakesh have also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Applications numbered 8066 of 2021 and 6845 of 2021 respectively. It is submitted that co-accused Ramu Gautam and Rajkamal have also been enlarged on bail by this court vide Bail Application no.14879 of 2021. Applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2022 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but has not disputed the factual aspects of the case. 7. 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." 8. 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 co-accused named above have already been granted bail. Applicant does not have previous criminal history. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed. Applicant is under incarceration since 24.11.2022. As per report filed by trial court dated 23.04.2025 out of eight prosecution witnesses, depositions of only two prosecution witnesses have been completed. Evidently, the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. 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. 9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 10. Let applicant Chandraram, 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 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 :- 12.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench