Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27088 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 283 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Despite notice served upon the informant, no one appeared on behalf of informant. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.164 of 2024, under Section 137(2), 74 & 61(2) B.N.S., Section 16/17 POCSO Act & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur. 4. Allegation in the FIR is that the applicant is minor daughter of the informant, was enticed away and physically molested by named accused persons. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that version of FIR and statement of the victim recorded under sections 180 & 183 Cr.P.C. are not supporting the prosecution case. Instant anticipatory bail application was filed after submission of charge-sheet. Investigating Officer has not collected any material evidence to prosecute the applicant. It is a no injury case. 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 investigation. 5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that from perusal of statement of the victim, it is apparent that the victim is aged about 14 to 15 years. From the statement of the victim recorded under sections 180 & 183 of B.N.S., offence is made out against the applicant. Victim in her statement has stated that on the request of the applicant and his friend Shadab, she sat on the auto-rickshaw. Prosecution story is supported by statement of the victim. Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. It is a crime against the society. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected. 6. The object of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. 7. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. 8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for anticipatory bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant- Mohit, involved in aforesaid case crime is, hereby, rejected. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad