Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7732 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11934 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Babu Renuj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Lalit Kumar Gond Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jagadish Prasad Yadav Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard 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 bail in Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 75(2) B.N.S. & Section 9-F/10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Aurai District Bhadohi. 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. Allegation against the applicant is that the applicant being Assistant Teacher of the Institution physically contacted the student of Class Vth aged about 12 years. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the statement of the victim and other material evidence have not supported the prosecution case. As per as Principal report the institution is very well fitted with CCTV but investigating officer during investigation has not collected any CCTV footage. Moreover, during investigation various teachers and parents of the student submitted affidavit that no such type of incident occurred on such date and applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. During investigation applicant cooperated with the investigation. Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant but evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has not supported by any cogent evidence. Learned Magistrate without considering the material evidence issued summon against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that maximum punishment is up-to seven years. Charge-sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would cooperate with the trial. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned AGA submits that he has received instruction that no CCTV footage has been installed in the institution. He next submits that the applicant is teacher of the institution and allegation alleged against him is fully supported by evidence. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the allegation against the applicant prima-facie discloses offence and offence is against the society as the teacher of the institution molested the student. Charge-sheet has been submitted. 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 482 of the B.N.S.S Act 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant as allegation against the applicant is against the society and being teacher of the institution, he has misbehaved with the student. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Vinay Babu Renuj, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad