Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:102296 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7318 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajveer Singh @ Raj Kumar Tyagi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Dutt Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhat Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 0239 of 2023 under Section 354 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel next submits that the applicant 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 applicant has no criminal antecedents and 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. He lastly submits that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 4. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. Perusal of the record shows that there is specific allegations against the applicant with regard to commission of offence. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held 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. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 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. 11. The Registrar (compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to concerned Court below forthwith. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Kumar Manish Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad