Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7558 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1922 of 2024 Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Lodhi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 09 of 2023, under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Ramgaon, District Bahraich. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served personally but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.08.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant Kuldeep seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No. 09 of 2023 under Section 363 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ramgaon, District Bahraich. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record. 3. In the First Information Report it is alleged that the applicant has enticed away the minor daughter of the informant, who is aged about 15 years. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. are contradictory. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she on her own accord went away with the applicant to Jalandhar where she stayed for 2-3 days. He further submits that the victim while traveling with the applicant has not raised any alarm for several days. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application. He submits that in the radiological test of the victim, she has been found to be 16 years. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that margin of two years on either side can be given as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 538, Jaya Mala Vs. Home Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and Others. 7. Perused the record. 8. Issue notice to respondent No.2. 9. Steps be taken within a week. 10. On due consideration to the facts that there is contradiction in the statements of the victim, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, the applicant during investigation has not been arrested, he has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the trial as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicants till the next date of listing. 11. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:- 1. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; 2. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; 3. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 4. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail. Such other reasonable conditions which the learned trial court may deem fit may be imposed. 12. List on 18.9.2024. 13. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit." From perusal of the order dated 27.08.2024, it transpires that the State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Kuldeep till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench