HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7982 of 2025 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 1713 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Rajni, who is mother of the victim, got an F.I.R. lodged on 11.06.2018 for the offence under Sections 366, 368 IPC against Nitin Kasana, Parvesh, Mukendra and Amit stating inter alia that her daughter aged about 18 years went missing since 10.06.2018 without giving any information. She came to know that her daughter has been abducted by the aforestated accused persons. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor the victim has taken his name in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His complicity came into light in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim which was recorded after 10 days of her recovery. During investigation, complainant and the victim gave an affidavit dated 25.08.2018 mentioning that the applicant did not commit rape on her. Therefore, the applicant was exonerated and no charge-sheet was submitted against him. Later on, when statement of the victim was recorded before the trial Court, she in her examination-in-chief and cross- examination has made allegation of rape upon her against the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jeet Narayan Dubey, Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Kumar @ Monu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) applicant also. Thereafter, on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution, the applicant was summoned as an additional accused to face trial vide order dated 28.04.2023. Lastly, it is submitted that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State of U.P. opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the applicant. So far as alleged affidavit dated 25.08.2018 is concerned, it is submitted that when the statement of the victim was further recorded, she did not say a single word that she had given any affidavit before the Investigating Officer. It is also pointed out that before the trial Court also, the victim in her statement has made allegation of rape against the applicant too, therefore, the applicant was summoned to face trial vide order dated 28.04.2023 but the applicant did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on 15.09.2025. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the victim is a minor child. The applicant has been summoned for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement recorded before the trial Court, has made allegation of rape against the applicant. Since allegation of prosecution and defence of accused-applicant is still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore this Court is not recording any finding on the merit of the case. However, it is relevant to mention that the alleged offence is heinous in nature. The statement of victim cannot be disbelieved at this stage. Object of Section 482 BNSS, 2023 is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of NABAIL No. 7982 of 2025 2 grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 BNSS is rejected. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. October 10, 2025 Shubham NABAIL No. 7982 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad