HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8138 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri B.P. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 575 of 2025 under Sections 126 (2), 75, 351 (2), 352 BNS and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail. 3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that the first informant has already been informed about pendency of this application before this Court. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant in the statements of the victim recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS is that he gave a paper to her. It is also submitted that the victim kept improving her versions in the statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bed Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Kumar Alias Manthan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant has committed the offence repeatedly as per statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per the FIR, there is allegation of outraging the modesty of the victim by the applicant. The victim in her statement recorded under section 180 BNSS has stated that the applicant had given her a paper which she threw after reading. Thereafter, she has stated in her statement recorded under section 183 BNSS that the applicant came to her and touched her hand and gave her a paper in which his mobile number was written along with a threatening that if she did not make a call on that number, she will face serious consequences. 8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must also evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicant Shiv Kumar @ Manthan involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- NABAIL No. 8138 of 2025 2 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned. 12. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. October 7, 2025 Madhurima NABAIL No. 8138 of 2025 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad