Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35604 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 805 of 2025 Applicant :- Varun Dubey Alias Varun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Shanker Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alakshendra Pratap,G.A.,Priyanka Singh,Sheel Kumar Singh Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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 bail in Case Crime No.149 of 2024, under Sections 452, 354 Kha, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kannauj, District Kannauj, during pendency of the 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. The informant is said to be minor. Earlier, the informant's mother lodged F.I.R. with malicious intention against some other persons and during trial after taking land, she became turned hostile. Thereafter, informant again lodged F.I.R. against some other person. The informant's mother is involved in blackmailing the innocent persons after lodging the F.I.R. He next submits that instant F.I.R. has also been lodged with malicious intention to blackmail the applicant. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet only against the applicant and I.O. does not find any evidence against the unknown persons. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged by minor victim and the statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are supporting the prosecution version. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the applicant. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 5. In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813, the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Apex Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is apparent that victim is minor and she has supported the prosecution story. No interference is warranted by this Court. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. 8. The Crl. Misc. Application No.1456 of 2025 is disconnected from this matter. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad