HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6259 of 2025 Court No. - 70 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant as well as counter affidavit filed by the State today in the Court, are taken on record. 2. Office vide its report dated 09.09.2025 has reported that notice issued to the first informant /opposite party no.4 has been served personally but none appears for the informant inspite of revision of the list. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jai Ram Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.333 of 2024 under Sections 328, 376-D I.P.C., and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the F.I.R. is delayed by one month and 18 days without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. He further submits that medical report of the victim also demonstrate that there is no injury on the upper limb. Learned counsel further argued that after investigation final report was submitted which was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr and the applicant has been summoned to face trial under the charged Sections. Learned counsel further argued that initially the investigating officer did not find complicity of the applicant in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ramesh Chandra Kushwaha, Sanjeev Kumar, Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shriram .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) commission of alleged offence, which has culminated in submission of final report but the same has been rejected by summoning the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has next argued 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. 6. Learned A.G.A.has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 7. Perusal of the record shows that the victim has levelled specific allegation against the applicant in commission of offence. Furthermore the victim has levelled specific allegations against the applicant in her statement recorded under under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 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. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is refused. 10. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 24, 2025 S.Ali NABAIL No. 6259 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad