HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8043 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 16.09.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Amroha, seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Sections 84, 137(2), 64 BNS, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 9/10 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, police station Saidnagli, district Amroha, during the pendency of the investigation. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of the victim, got an F.I.R. lodged on 29.04.2025 against the applicant Gaurav stating inter alia that marriage of his daughter (victim) was solemnized on 21.02.2025 with Krishna Kumar. On 22.04.2025, she came to his house from her matrimonial home. On 28.04.2025, when he had gone to field, she was alone in the house. At that time, the applicant enticed away his daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim in her statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, 2023 has stated inter alia that the applicant did not commit any misdeed with her. Since the victim was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gaurav Kumar @ Gaurav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) beaten by her husband Krishna Kumar in her matrimonial home and his behaviour towards the victim was not good, therefore, the victim herself left her house and had gone with the applicant. Under the facts of the case, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State of U.P. vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that the victim was married with Krishna Kumar and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the applicant but the applicant, without getting divorce of the victim with her first husband, solemnized marriage with the victim in a temple after enticing her away. During investigation, the applicant and the victim also gave an affidavit dated 29.04.2025 about their marriage and living together as husband and wife, which is part of the case diary. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on 04.08.2025 against the applicant. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated without any credible evidence against him. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that marriage of the victim was already solemnized with Krishna Kumar and there was no divorce between the victim and her husband Krishna Kumar. Despite having knowledge of the said facts, the applicant solemnized marriage with the victim. The charge-sheet has also been submitted in this case. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court cannot 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 applicants to flee from Justice , apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or NABAIL No. 8043 of 2025 2 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 fact that after investigation charge has been submitted against the applicant, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power umaterials / evidences on record.nder Section 482 B.N.S.S. is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly this application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is rejected. It is clarified that anything said in this order at this stage is limited to 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. October 13, 2025 Shubham NABAIL No. 8043 of 2025 3 (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad