Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45730 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 969 of 2025 Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Dhanuk @ Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Vakalatnama filed by Mohd. Salman, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.0036/2025 under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS, 2023, added section while investigation 64(1) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Asoha, District Unnao. In the FIR it is alleged that on 18.3.2025 at about 1.00 p.m. the victim has been enticed away by the applicant. While going away the victim took away Rs.5000/- with her. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The victim is a major, and in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), she has not supported the prosecution version. There is no corroborative material on record. As per the radiological examination, the victim has been found to be approximately 18 years of age. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, stating that the investigation is still ongoing. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. On due consideration of the fact that the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) indicates that she was, prima facie, a consenting party, and further considering that the FIR, date of birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and marriage certificate mention different dates of birth of the victim, thereby raising doubts regarding her actual age, and as per the radiological examination, she has been assessed to be approximately 18 years of age, the applicant has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, this Court is of the considered opinion that the liberty of the applicant deserves to be protected. In view of the above, the application is allowed. It is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant, Virendra Kumar Dhanuk @ Virendra Kumar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall remain present as and when required by the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. In case of breach of any condition, it shall be open to the investigating agency to move an appropriate application for vacation of this protection. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench