Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37099 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1190 of 2025 Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 91 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly, during pendency of trial. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is not named in the FIR. Applicant challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition bearing No.5316 of 2024 before this Court, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 granted interim protection till next date of listing or till cognizance taken by court on police report, which ever is earlier. The same petition is still pending. Applicant's counsel has orally submitted that court concerned has issued summon against the applicant. Victim is major and I.O. has submitted charge sheet without recording of statement of family members of the victim. As per statement of victim recorded U/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no offence under the alleged sections is made out against the applicant. Learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind, has issued summon against the applicant. In support of his contention, applicant's counsel has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Ansaar Mohammad Vs. The State of Rajasthan and another on 14.07.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate in trial proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicant as I.O. has submitted charge sheet after recording statement of victim and collecting cogent evidence. Medical examination report is supported the prosecution case. Applicant is a married person and has enticed unmarried victim and has made physical relation many times. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. The object of Section 482 of BNSS is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 6. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, it is apparent that writ petition is pending and there is no evidence that court concerned has issued summons after submission of charge sheet. On fact, it is admitted fact that applicant is married person and employed in police department. Applicant is named in the FIR. It is not a case of false implication. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant, Nitin Kumar, is rejected. 9. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 10. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad