Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8623 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1986 of 2024 Applicant :- Sangeet @ Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl Chief Sectt. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Bahadur Singh,Sudheer Kumar Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. The case was listed on Friday i.e. on 07.02.2025 and no one was present on behalf of the complainant. Today also no one is present for the complainant. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is proceeding in the matter. 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 Case Crime 205 of 2024, under Sections 366, 342, 506 IPC, Police Station Imliya, District Sultanpur. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 04.09.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 205/2024, under Sections 366/342/506 I.P.C., P.S. Imliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur. In the FIR, it is alleged that minor daughter of the informant aged about 16 years was enticed away. It is also alleged that the applicant played active role in her enticement. The mobile of the victim was found where she was sleeping in which mobile numbers of the accused persons were found. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that she has not supported the prosecution case. She has stated that she of her own accord went away with the applicant. She has also stated that her date of birth is 19.05.2006, thus, she is major. It has been further submitted that while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. improvement has been made by the victim and contrary statement to her earlier statement has been made. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the victim of her own accord went away with the applicant and resided with him for a period of 20 days at Lucknow which shows that the victim who is major was a consenting party. The applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has no criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Steps be taken within a week. Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit. List on 26.09.2024. On due consideration to the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as considering the fact that as per the statement of the victim, her date of birth is 19.05.2006 and according to that she was major at the time of incident; there is lack of corroborative evidence; the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering 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, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." From perusal of the order dated 04.09.2024, it transpires that 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, Sangeet @ Lal 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 :- 10.2.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench