Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42125 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 770 of 2025 Applicant :- Badkau @ Irfan Ali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama today, same is taken on record. 2. The present applicants are apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No.0109/2023, under Sections 376-D of I.P.C. and Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Malhipur, District Shrawasti. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case as they have not committed any offence as alleged. 3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the specific allegation of kidnapping of the prosecutrix, who is aged about 15 years has been levelled against all accused persons. During investigation, when the statement was recorded, the allegation of rape has been levelled against all accused persons. Annexure-8 is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that her age is 15 years and accused persons have kidnapped her where-after took her to an isolated place where all have committed rape after forcing her to drink some intoxicated content. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure 18, which is an order dated 15.05.2025 passed by this Court in an Application U/S 482 No.2920/2025; Badkau @ Irfan Ali and 2 others vs. State of U.P., whereby this Court granted liberty to the applicants to file their bail application before the learned trial court and the same should be decided in terms of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further stated that since the anticipatory bail application is also a bail application therefore he filed anticipatory bail application before the learned session court, which was rejected on the ground of maintainability therefore, he filed this anticipatory bail application before this Court. Learned counsel has stated that the anticipatory bail is very much maintainable, so the same may be entertained. 5. Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid anticipatory bail application by submitting that this is a case wherein there is no delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix has levelled specific allegation against the present applicants while recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.. She is 15 years old as per her own statement, however, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that her age is 17 years, and considering the other material available on record, this case may not be a case of false implication, therefore, instead of filing anticipatory bail application, the applicants should file their regular bail application before the competent court of law. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find substance of the objection so raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. However, the applicants may file regular bail application before the competent court of law within a period of fifteen days from today and if such regular bail is filed, same may be heard and disposed of with expedition without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 7. It is needless to say that while filing their regular bail application, learned counsel for the applicant/applicants may take all pleas and grounds which are available to him and competent court concerned may peruse those submissions of the applicants carefully. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench