Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27012 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11632 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Alias Raj Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Tomar,Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned 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 him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 788 of 2017, under Sections 354-D, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, during pendency of trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Injuries sustained by injured are simple in nature. I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicant but no offence under the alleged sections is made out. Applicant has filed 482 application before this Hon'ble Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the 482 application of the applicant vide order dated 18.09.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate in trial proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Prosecution story is supported by medical examination report and statement of victim, as such, 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. The object of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 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. 6. 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 applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of 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. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Amit @ Raj Verma, is rejected. 9. 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. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad