HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 10302 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Sri Ranjay Kumar, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ranjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant prays that he may be permitted to correct the prayer clause. 4. Prayer is allowed. He may do so during the course of the day. 5. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 79 of 2018, under Sections 376, 342, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Sisolar, District Hamirpur with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. The first information report of the present case was lodged against the applicant on 22.9.2018 in respect of alleged incident dated 18.9.2018 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the aforesaid sections on 18.1.2019. The applicant surrendered before Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : K.K. Rao, Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pavan Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the court below and obtained bail from the court concerned. The applicant is regularly appearing before the court concerned and he is facing criminal trial. The charges were framed against the applicant and statement of the first informant was recorded in the trial court as PW-1 on 30.3.2020. He was cross-examined at length by the defence counsel. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded as PW-2 on 8.10.2021 and she was cross-examined by the defence counsel. After examination of the aforesaid witnesses, the informant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 30.11.2021, wherein he prayed that the applicant be summoned to face criminal trial under Sections 376, 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The aforesaid application dated 30.11.2021 was allowed by the court concerned vide order dated 25.2.2026. The applicant was directed to surrender before the court concerned under Sections 376, 342, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The other co-accused was also summoned by the court concerned to face criminal trial vide order dated 25.2.2026. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order dated 25.2.2026 passed by the court concerned was challenged by the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 2162 of 2026 and notices were issued to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 vide order dated 30.3.2026. No interim order was granted to the applicant and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has not misused the liberty of bail and he is regularly appearing before the court concerned. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 25.2.2026 suffers from illegality and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The applicant is hopeful that he would succeed in Criminal Revision No. 2162 of 2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. The applicant has not misused the liberty of bail granted to him by the court concerned and his anticipatory bail application be allowed in added Sections 376, 342, 506 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. NABAIL No. 10302 of 2026 2 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 8. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 9. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." NABAIL No. 10302 of 2026 3 10. 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 merits, and the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 11. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest/appearance of the applicant-Pavan Singh involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 12. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. October 1, 2026 Lalit Shukla NABAIL No. 10302 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad