Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5379 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2085 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivam Pathak @ Pawan Pathak (In F.I.R Shivam Payhak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Thru. Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Sharma,Aakash Rai,Vaibhav Sharma 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- Shivam Pathak @ Pawan Pathak (In F.I.R Shivam Pathak) on anticipatory bail in Case Crime (FIR) No. 480 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354-A, 354-D I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow. It has been noticed by the Court that the notice has been served by the State upon respondent no.4/complainant but no one is present for the complainant/respondent no.4. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 10.09.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No. 480/2018, under Sections 323/504/506/354-A/354-D I.P.C., and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Hasanganj, District Lucknow. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. As per the instructions of learned AGA, notices to the complainant are served, however, none appears on behalf of the complainant. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the accused-applicant who is neighbor of the complainant used to molest his minor daughter who is aged about 14 years. In the night of 19.08.2018 at about 2:00 am while the victim was sleeping with her sister at the roof, the applicant tried to molest her. It is further alleged that he on 20.08.2018 has threatened the brother of the victim to marry the victim else he will have to face consequences. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are at variance. After attaining majority, both the applicant and the victim have married in Arya Samaj Mandir on 06.09.2024. The marriage has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar-II, Lucknow on 07.09.2024. He has drawn attention on the Court towards high school mark-sheet as well as Adhar Card of the victim and according to those documents, the victim was major at the time of marriage. The applicant was not arrested during investigation. Charge sheet in the matter has been filed and no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused behind the bars. 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. Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit. List on 25.09.2024. On due consideration to the fact that both the applicant and the victim have married; variance in the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; lack of corroborative evidence; at the time of marriage the victim was major; 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 10.09.2024, 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, Shivam Pathak @ Pawan Pathak (In F.I.R Shivam Pathak) 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 :- 27.1.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench