Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63370 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2960 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shaurya Sharma Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State, counsel for the informant and perused the material on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 123 of 2024, under Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Atrocities Prevention Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was not disclosed by the victim in her statement under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. The name of the applicant was subsequently disclosed on 01.10.2024 by the mother of the victim. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. Earlier, the applicant was granted bail under Section 89 B.N.S. by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sonbhadra vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 2064 of 2024 (Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.). After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Atrocities Prevention Act. The applicant was not involved in abatement of offence. Thereafter, the provisions of S.C./S.T. Atrocities Prevention Act has been invoked to aggravate the offence. The applicant had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Further, identically placed co-accused, Aanchal Maurya, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2974 of 2025 (Aanchal Maurya vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, the fact that the name of the applicant was not disclosed by the victim in her statement under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., the fact that earlier, the applicant was granted bail under Section 89 B.N.S. by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Sonbhadra, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant, the fact that identically placed co-accused, Aanchal Maurya, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. In the event of arrest, the applicant Raj Kumar Singh, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court. 7. 7. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same. 8. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad