Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

2. The instant application is being moved by the applicant-Ajay Kumar that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with Case Crime no.0153 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Newadhia, DistrictJaunpur.

3. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 04.01.2023.

4. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged against three named accused including the applicant with the allegations that applicant with the help and assistance of his sisters, who are named in the FIR, under the garb of promising to marry, the informant has sexually exploited.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He further submits that there is dispute between applicant's sister and her husband Rajeshwar, who has planted the informant/victim to lodge such false case in order to exert pressure upon the applicant. He further submits that victim is a major lady having two children. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously advanced a number of arguments demonstrating falsity of accusation levelled by the informant in first information report to besmirch reputation of the applicant and belittle him in the public estimate. He contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and never undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. He further submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

8. After the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.

9. Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, with the conditions that :

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) 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 or to any police office;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

(iv) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent way and would try to conclude it expeditiously.

10. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

11. In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of.