HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1194 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Case Crime No. 25/2025, Under Section- 137(2), 127(2), 87,64,61 (1) BNS & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P. S. - Ramgaon, District - Bahraich Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. Notice to the complainant is served in view of the proposed order. 3. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 17 years, was enticed away by co-accused Amar Singh on 17.01.2025 at around 5:00 a.m. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim did not mention the name of the present applicant, who happens to be the real sister of co-accused Amar Singh. It is argued that only in her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, the victim made improvements and, for the first time, named the applicant. No specific allegation of rape, or of assisting the co-accused in committing rape, has been levelled against the applicant. The allegations attributed to her are general in nature, relating only to beating and confinement. 5. It is further contended that while the victim initially alleged in her Section 180 BNSS statement that the incident took place at Huzurpur, she later changed the place of occurrence to Malhipur in her Section 183 BNSS Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Anita Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) statement. Moreover, in her statement before the doctor, the victim did not name the applicant. Despite this, a final report was filed against her, on which cognizance was taken and summons were issued by the learned Special Court under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 87, 64, and 61(1) BNS. 6. It is further submitted that by no stretch of imagination offence under section 64 BNS is made out. The applicant is a married lady and has no criminal history. It is a case of false implication. 7. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail application, submitting that the allegations of beating and confinement find mention in the prosecution case as well as in the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. 8. Having considered the facts of the case, including that the applicant has been summoned only after cognizance was taken on the final report filed against her by the Investigating Officer, and finding that prima facie no offence under Section 87 read with Section 64 BNS is made out, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, subject to her cooperation in the trial. 9. In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; NABAIL No. 1194 of 2025 2 (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. 10. 10. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. September 9, 2025 R.C. NABAIL No. 1194 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench