Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139146 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6350 of 2025 Applicant :- Praveen Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Yadav, Sant Ram Nigam,Vivek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 155 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 69 of B.N.S., Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It has further been submitted that prosecutrix has made allegation against the applicant that on the pretext of false promise of marriage he has developed sexual relations with her. Learned counsel further submits that prosecutrix is major woman. Earlier her husband left her. False allegation has been made by the prosecutrix against the applicant. Whatever relations were made between them that was made with the consent of prosecutrix. Thus, it has been 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. Learned counsel further submits that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate 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. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 5. It may be stated that in 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. 6. 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. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad