Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Dhananjai Singh, learned counsel for complainant/ opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.186 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 328, 120-B IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

3. As per the contents of FIR, the incident is said to have been taken place on 12.04.2024 when the applicant alongwith co- accused Durgesh is said to have abducted the minor daughter of informant whereafter she was taken to Delhi and was sexually assaulted by the said Durgesh and one Vikas. Administration of intoxicating drink has also been given by the applicant to the victim.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction in the prosecution version inasmuch as one Kesh Kumari wife of Gautam is said to have an eye witness of the entire sequence of abduction, whereas statement of Kesh Kumari recorded in the case diary clearly indicates the allegation of abduction being made only against co-accused Durgesh. It is submitted that the FIR was manipulated and has been lodged on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant without any active role is under incarceration since 21.10.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed the bail application with the submission that statement of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS clearly make out a case on the Sections which have been imputed 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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that no allegation of sexual assault and molestation has been attributed to the applicant. The aspect of his role in the abduction appears to be contradicted by the statement of Kesh Kumari who is indicated as an eye witness in the FIR. The said aspect would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 21.10.2024 without any previous criminal history.

8. As per submission of learned counsel for the complainant, the examination-in-chief of complainant has already been concluded.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Anil, 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 :- 8.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Dhananjai Singh, learned counsel for complainant/ opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.186 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 328, 120-B IPC and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

3. As per the contents of FIR, the incident is said to have been taken place on 12.04.2024 when the applicant alongwith co- accused Durgesh is said to have abducted the minor daughter of informant whereafter she was taken to Delhi and was sexually assaulted by the said Durgesh and one Vikas. Administration of intoxicating drink has also been given by the applicant to the victim.

4. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction in the prosecution version inasmuch as one Kesh Kumari wife of Gautam is said to have an eye witness of the entire sequence of abduction, whereas statement of Kesh Kumari recorded in the case diary clearly indicates the allegation of abduction being made only against co-accused Durgesh. It is submitted that the FIR was manipulated and has been lodged on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant without any active role is under incarceration since 21.10.2024 without any previous criminal history.

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have opposed the bail application with the submission that statement of victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS clearly make out a case on the Sections which have been imputed 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 parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that no allegation of sexual assault and molestation has been attributed to the applicant. The aspect of his role in the abduction appears to be contradicted by the statement of Kesh Kumari who is indicated as an eye witness in the FIR. The said aspect would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 21.10.2024 without any previous criminal history.

8. As per submission of learned counsel for the complainant, the examination-in-chief of complainant has already been concluded.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Anil, 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 :- 8.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench