Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Rajbhar, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 250 of 2024, U/S 363, 366, 376 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Peepiganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

3. The applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 17 years, on 27.6.2024 in connivance with the co-accused person Ram Awadh.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

5. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

6. There is no time of offence mentioned in the FIR.

7. The victim is the consenting party, as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She herself has stated her age to be seventeen and a half years.

8. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

9. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.6.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

10. The bail application have been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant have not been disputed.

CONCLUSION:

11. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

12. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

13. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

14. Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

15. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant- Sintu involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concer