Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28641 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12658 of 2024 Applicant :- Somendra @ Somendra Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. As per office report dated 16th January, 2025, notice has been personally served upon opposite party No.2 who has not put in appearance. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 278 of 2024 under Section 5m/6 of the POCSO Act 2012, Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi. As per contents of FIR, applicant stands accused of unnatural sex with the minor grand son of informant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him only on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the statements of informant and victim recorded during trial as P.W.1 and P.W.2 with submission that neither of them have supported prosecution version. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the medical report clearly indicating injury suffered is simple in nature and therefore does not corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 16th August, 2024 with only two prosecution witnesses having been examined. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said fact. 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, perusal of certified copies of deposition of informant and victim as P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they do not appear to have supported the prosecution version. The injury report also indicates simple injury being suffered. As per trial court report dated 7th May, 2025, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and therefore nine prosecution witnesses still remain to be examined. There is no hope of early conclusion of trial. 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. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant Somendra @ Somendra Verma 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 :- 15.5.2025 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