Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26167 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 627 of 2025 Applicant :- Toyaj Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Pusp Raj Singh,Sharad Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging her on bail in Case Crime No.366 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village partybandi. The victim is minor but earlier she left her parental house with co-accused Aman Mishra. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The whole prosecution story is false and malicious. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. As per High school marksheet, the victim is minor and she has not been recovered till date. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. The victim is minor and she has not been recovered till today. Moreover, the applicant is named in the F.I.R. No interference is warranted by this Court. 7. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad