Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108333 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6195 of 2024 Applicant :- Pavanesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. According to the instruction of learned A.G.A. notice has been served upon the informant of the case but none appears for the informant to press this anticipatory bail application. 2. List revised. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 443 of 2022, under Sections 323, 506, 354, 147 I.P.C., and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and 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 co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. Perusal of the record shows that specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer to grant anticipatory bail is refused. 9. However, it is open for the applicant to move regular bail before the concerned Court below. In case, such an application for bail is moved before the concerned Court below, then it is expected that the concerned Court below shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the necessary guidelines for grant of bail as laid down in the matter of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 S.Ali Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad