Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Abhay seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Padari, District Mirzapur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. On 20.6.2025 at 5.00 p.m. the applicant on false pretext of marriage took the victim to Delhi where he committed rape with her several times and also used to beat, abuse and threaten her and one day she informed the matter to her father and was taken back to her house. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that the victim of this case happens to be the real cousin of the applicant. Applicant is already a married person. There was no need to him to take away the victim to Delhi. Statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS are false. It is also submitted that medical examination report available in the case diary does not corroborate the prosecution story and no sign of rape/ physical relation comes out from the perusal of the same. The investigation of the case is 2 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that although the victim of this case is a major girl but she was taken by the applicant to Delhi only on the false pretext of marriage. It is also submitted that the victim is not the real cousin of the applicant but she is daughter of cousin maternal uncle of the applicant.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. Medical report, prima facie, does not support the prosecution case. It also appears that the victim never made any noise or complaint to any person when she was confined by the accused in a room at Delhi.

8. 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 influencing course 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.

9. 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 occasion to arrest an 3 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 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.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (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/her 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. 4 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 17, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Abhay seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, P.S. Padari, District Mirzapur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. On 20.6.2025 at 5.00 p.m. the applicant on false pretext of marriage took the victim to Delhi where he committed rape with her several times and also used to beat, abuse and threaten her and one day she informed the matter to her father and was taken back to her house. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that the victim of this case happens to be the real cousin of the applicant. Applicant is already a married person. There was no need to him to take away the victim to Delhi. Statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS are false. It is also submitted that medical examination report available in the case diary does not corroborate the prosecution story and no sign of rape/ physical relation comes out from the perusal of the same. The investigation of the case is 2 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co- operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that although the victim of this case is a major girl but she was taken by the applicant to Delhi only on the false pretext of marriage. It is also submitted that the victim is not the real cousin of the applicant but she is daughter of cousin maternal uncle of the applicant.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It appears that investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O. Medical report, prima facie, does not support the prosecution case. It also appears that the victim never made any noise or complaint to any person when she was confined by the accused in a room at Delhi.

8. 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 influencing course 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.

9. 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 occasion to arrest an 3 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 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.

10. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 193 of BNSS before the Competent Court.

11. The application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (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/her 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. 4 NABAIL No. 9444 of 2025 Concerned.

13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 17, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)