Statement–Argument — Should sex determination through ultrasound and female foeticide be made a non-bailable offence? Arguments: I. Yes. Prompt and stringent non-bailable provisions are necessary to deter gender-biased practices and protect the girl child. II. No. People should enjoy their freedom, and such restrictions curtail it.

Introduction / Context:
The issue relates to gender justice and deterrence against practices that skew sex ratios and violate bodily and child rights.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Sex-selective practices cause societal harm.
• Criminal law uses bail policy to balance liberty with deterrence and investigation needs.
• Proportionality and public interest matter.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments are rights-consistent and acknowledge harm prevention. Liberty is vital, but it is not absolute; it is limited to prevent rights violations of others.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I: Seeks effective deterrence for grave, systemic harm. It is relevant, proportionate in principle (subject to safeguards), and rights-protective—strong.2) II: Invokes undifferentiated “freedom,” ignoring competing rights and harms, offering no proportionality analysis—weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Serious offences often carry stricter bail thresholds to deter crime and prevent tampering.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They elevate an unqualified liberty claim over concrete harm prevention.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing absolute freedom with regulated liberty within a rights framework.

Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.