W Minor vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.149 of 2025, under Sections 377, 511 of I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffarnagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant by the victim in his statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant and he is apprehending his arrest. It is further submitted that co-accused persons are said to have committed unnatural sex with the son of the first informant, who is a minor. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, 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.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.

¶17

NABAIL No. 7346 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

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.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant- W (Minor) involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on interim anticipatory bail till 27.03.2026 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount by his natural guardian mother Smt. Afroj w/o Shri Tasalim to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

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

¶25

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶26

List this case on 27.03.2026 as fresh at 02:00 P.M.

¶27

The first informant is directed to engage a counsel and arguing the case.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

February 16, 2026 RKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

W Minor v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

W Minor v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dalchand Alias Pappu Sasur vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Pal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sageer vs State of U.P.

Rahul Rai vs State of U.P.