Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123352 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5215 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Lalita @ Kanta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mrityunjay Singh Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 345 of 2017, under Sections 363, 1250-B I.P.C. and Section 16/17 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Surir, District Mathura, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Vide order dated 03.09.2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to cooperate during the trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 7. Perusal of record shows that vide order dated 03.09.2024 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail subject to the conditions mentioned in the order, in which one of the condition was to the effect that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation/ trial. As per the order sheet of the trial, which has been filed in the supplementary affidavit today, the applicant is not regularly appearing at the trial, thus, the applicant has violated the condition and is misusing the liberty of bail. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 8. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. 10. Interim order, if any stands vacated. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad