Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7328 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 285 of 2025 Applicant :- Aslam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Fazil,Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer as well as perused the record. 3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.542 of 2024, registered under Sections 64, 351(2), 351(3), 61(2) of B.N.S. at Police Station- Nawgawan Sadat, District- Amroha with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the victim for the period of eight years on the false promise of marriage and subsequently had refused to comply with the said betrothal. The applicant is even stated to have video recorded the indecent act and had threatened her to make it viral on social media. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR itself is delayed. It is further stated that the victim is a consenting party. The victim herself has stated her age to be 26 years, although, as per ossification test report, her age has come up to be 19 years. The applicant and the victim both are unmarried persons. It is next stated that the both were having consensual relationship but had fallen apart, as such the instant FIR has been instituted. It is a clear cut case of misuse of process of law. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the said relationship continued for a period of eight years and the age of the victim has come up to be 19 years as per ossification test report and even if a leverage of two years may be granted, the victim comes up to be minor, as such the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and taking into consideration the fact that the victim herself has narrated her age to be 26 years and their being consensual relationship between them and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Aslam be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. 10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad