JUDGMENT : Siddharth, J. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar -IV, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Yang Mengmeng, with a prayer to release him on bail in Criminal Case No.118594 of 2024, Charge-sheet No.138 of 2024, Charge- sheet dated 27.9.2024, Case Crime No. 142 of 2024, under Sections 340(2), 318(2), 319, 337, 61(2) B.N.S. and under Section 14-A of Foreigner's Act, Police Station Sonauli Kotwali, District- Maharajganj, during pendency of trial. There are allegations in the FIR dated 01.8.2024 lodged by the police that the applicant alongwith two co-accused, namely, Gu Baoqiang and Lobsang Tsering, were caught trying to illegally enter the Indo-Nepal boarder, being foreign nationals. On inquiry, passports of the applicants and other accused, Gu Baoqiang, were found to be of Chinese origin. Third person, namely, Lobsang Tsering, was found with Indian Aadhar Card, Nepalese Driving Licence, Indian PAN Card, Indian Voter Card, one ATM, mobile phone, Indian currency of Rs.2100/- and Nepalese currency of Rs.5700/-. No other recovery was made from the applicant and other Chinese national. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the offences alleged against the applicant are triable by Magistrate. He has no criminal history to his credit either in this country or his native country. The applicant being Chinese national, his investigation was transferred to A.T.S. Field Unit, Gorakhpur. The mobile phone of the applicant was sent to F.S.L., Lucknow, but nothing incriminating was recovered from the same. After investigation, A.T.S. converted the implication of the applicant under Sections 336(3), 61(1) B.N.S. to lesser Section 318(2), 319, 337, 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 14 of Foreigner's Act, 1946 and reduced and replaced by Sections 340(2), 318(2), 319, 337, 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 14-A of Foreigner's Act. However, Section 14 (C) of the act was added in the case of co-accused, Lobsang Tsering and charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 138(2), 319, 337, 340(2) and 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 14-A of Foreigner's Act against the applicant and his Chinese co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that applicant was not arrested from any "restricted area" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Foreigners (Restricted Area) Order, 1963 and hence no offence under Section 14-A of Foreigner's Act, 1946, is made out against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that applicant was not arrested from any "restricted area" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Foreigners (Restricted Area) Order, 1963 and hence no offence under Section 14-A of Foreigner's Act, 1946, is made out against him. The offences alleged under the provisions of B.N.S. are not made out against the applicant since he never possessed nor used any fabricated document at any point of time. The aforesaid offences were committed by co-accused, Lobsang Tsering. Charge- sheet has already been submitted against applicant and therefore, he cannot tamper with any prosecution evidence. Even otherwise evidence against him mostly is documentary in nature. He has lastly submitted that applicant merely strayed in Indian Territory and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit wherein it has only been stated that the applicant unauthorizedly entered into territory of this country. The other averments made in the counter affidavit relate to the mode and manner of recovery against the applicant.There is no denial in the counter affidavit that applicant was found in any restricted area. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that nothing has been recovered from the applicant, which may prove that the applicant entered into country with some mala fide intention. Learned AGA is not able to point out any incriminating material recovered from the applicant. In the counter affidavit filed in bail application, no other criminal history has been brought on record against the applicant nor it has been disputed that the applicant was not arrested from the "restricted area" as defined under Section 2(b) of Foreigners (Restricted Area) Order, 1963. The applicant is in jail since 01.8.2024. Before the trial court, it appears that either charges have been framed or about to be framed. Trial will take time to conclude. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 , considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount and one surety out of two shall be local. (ii) The applicant shall not leave District Maharajganj without permission of the trial court and shall reside on address given in the prison records. (iii) The applicant will furnish his cell phone number to the trial court, on which he shall be connected and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched on all the times. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court and shall not travel out of the country without permission of the trial court. (v) In case of any change in his residential address, he file details before the trial court promptly and inform in writing. (vi) Any of the observation in this order shall not be binding on the trial court with regard to the trial. (vii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (viii) 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. (ix) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (x) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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. (xi) 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. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. The Foreign Registration Officer appointed as per Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, shall be informed about grant of bail to the applicant by this order as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bueau and others reported in (2025)3 SCC 1 .