X-MINORversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 10007 of 2026

X-Minor
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Kamlesh Shrama, Rajrshi Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Singh, Manjesh Singh
                                Yadav

Court No. - 72
                  HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kuamr Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jitendra Singh, learned
counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No. 179 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 137(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and
Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Dullahpur, District Ghazipur,
with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. 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 alleged incident is said to have taken place on 14.06.2026,
whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after a long delay on 28.06.2026, under
Sections 69, 87, 351(3) of B.N.S. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not
been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. As per the allegation
contained in the F.I.R., physical relationship was established between the
applicant and the victim on the pretext of marriage. It is further contended
that admittedly the applicant and the victim both are teenagers. As per high-
school certificate of the applicant, he was just about 17 years of age; his date
of birth is 01.06.2009. As per the high-school certificate of the victim, her
date of birth is 01.06.2010. The statements of the victim was recorded under
                                                     NABAIL No. 10007 of 2026
                                 2


Section 180 of B.N.S.S. and 183 of B.N.S.S., wherein the victim alleged that
she was in touch with the applicant for the past one and half year and
physical relationship was established between her and the applicant on the
false promise of marriage. The ocular version is not supported with medical
evidence. It is further contended that since the applicant himself is a minor
boy, therefore, a sympathetic approach may be adopted by this Court and
anticipatory bail application may be granted to the applicant who has no
criminal antecedent to his credit. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and
trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or
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.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, they
do not dispute the factual aspect.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
                                                        NABAIL No. 10007 of 2026
                                3


occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

8. 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, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following
directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- X-Minor involved in aforesaid
case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on
his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police
station concerned or the court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(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 her/him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                                                                        NABAIL No. 10007 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    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.




                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    A.P. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad