Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Saleem in connection with Case Crime No. 167 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Tanda, District- Rampur.

3. As per prosecution case on the false pretext of marriage the present accused applicant enjoyed with the victim of this case and she was also administered some pills by the accused only with a view to terminate the pregnancy. The relationship continued for 4 years and she got pregnancy 3 or 4 times and on the aforesaid occasions her pregnancy was terminated by the accused applicant by giving some pills to her, ultimately he finally refused to marry with the victim and also made an assault upon her. Now since the accused applicant is going to marry with another girl his relationship with the victim of this case has come to an end and on the basis of his final refusal the FIR was lodged.

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that he has caused no crime in this matter. It is further submitted that it is a case of sexual relationship between the two major persons and the physical relations were made and developed only after obtaining the consent of the victim of this case. It is further submitted that there is no promise of marriage on the part of the applicant and since both of them were major persons she was fully aware as to what she was doing. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that earlier in the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8008 of 2025 a protection was granted to the applicant by the Division Bench of this Court and in the said writ petition till taking cognizance by the Court or till filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. his arrest was stayed vide order dated 30.4.2025. It is also submitted that no false promise of marriage was ever made by the present accused applicant and the allegations in this regard levelled by the prosecution are totally false. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 2 NABAIL No. 9565 of 2025

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that only on the false pretext of marriage on the part of the accused applicant the applicant made and developed physical relation with the victim and now he has finally refused to marry with her.

6. The Court takes notice of the fact that the victim of this case is a major person. The physical relations between the victim and the accused applicant were made and developed with the consent of the victim of this case and since she is a major lady she was very well aware of the fact that as to what she was doing and even after termination of pregnancy she remained in relation with the accused applicant that is a little unnatural fact.

7. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

8. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

9. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, llikelihood 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.

10. 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. So far 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." 3 NABAIL No. 9565 of 2025

11. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

13. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :- i. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. November 26, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Saleem in connection with Case Crime No. 167 of 2025, under Sections 69, 115(2), 351(2) BNS, P.S.- Tanda, District- Rampur.

3. As per prosecution case on the false pretext of marriage the present accused applicant enjoyed with the victim of this case and she was also administered some pills by the accused only with a view to terminate the pregnancy. The relationship continued for 4 years and she got pregnancy 3 or 4 times and on the aforesaid occasions her pregnancy was terminated by the accused applicant by giving some pills to her, ultimately he finally refused to marry with the victim and also made an assault upon her. Now since the accused applicant is going to marry with another girl his relationship with the victim of this case has come to an end and on the basis of his final refusal the FIR was lodged.

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that he has caused no crime in this matter. It is further submitted that it is a case of sexual relationship between the two major persons and the physical relations were made and developed only after obtaining the consent of the victim of this case. It is further submitted that there is no promise of marriage on the part of the applicant and since both of them were major persons she was fully aware as to what she was doing. It is also submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that earlier in the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8008 of 2025 a protection was granted to the applicant by the Division Bench of this Court and in the said writ petition till taking cognizance by the Court or till filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. his arrest was stayed vide order dated 30.4.2025. It is also submitted that no false promise of marriage was ever made by the present accused applicant and the allegations in this regard levelled by the prosecution are totally false. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 2 NABAIL No. 9565 of 2025

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that only on the false pretext of marriage on the part of the accused applicant the applicant made and developed physical relation with the victim and now he has finally refused to marry with her.

6. The Court takes notice of the fact that the victim of this case is a major person. The physical relations between the victim and the accused applicant were made and developed with the consent of the victim of this case and since she is a major lady she was very well aware of the fact that as to what she was doing and even after termination of pregnancy she remained in relation with the accused applicant that is a little unnatural fact.

7. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

8. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

9. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, llikelihood 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.

10. 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. So far 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." 3 NABAIL No. 9565 of 2025

11. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

13. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Court concerned with the following conditions :- i. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. iv. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. November 26, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)