Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Rajan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0218 of 2025, under Sections 69, 123, 352, 351(3) of BNS, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.

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

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present applicant was having physical relations with the lady victim for a period of one and a half year on the basis of false pretext of marriage and when she insisted for marriage, he flatly refused. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

5. 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. Both the parties are major. It is also submitted that physical relations were made and continued by the applicant with her consent and free will but he never made any promise to marry with her. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of the 2 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025 victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. The investigation of the case is 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. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the reason behind the physical relations between the two was false promise of marriage, which was made by the accused with the victim. There is no possibility of false implication of the present applicant in this case. Offence committed by the applicant is very serious.

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

7. It appears that first relation between the two was made when some intoxicant was administered to the victim by the applicant and physical relations were made with her but no FIR was lodged against the present applicant after the first incident rather she continued to meet and make physical relations with the applicant. It also appears that the victim was major and was very well knowing the consequences of her act. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O.

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. 3 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025

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 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(3) 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. 4 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025 (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.

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. December 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Rajan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0218 of 2025, under Sections 69, 123, 352, 351(3) of BNS, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.

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

4. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the present applicant was having physical relations with the lady victim for a period of one and a half year on the basis of false pretext of marriage and when she insisted for marriage, he flatly refused. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation is going on.

5. 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. Both the parties are major. It is also submitted that physical relations were made and continued by the applicant with her consent and free will but he never made any promise to marry with her. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of the 2 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025 victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. The investigation of the case is 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. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the reason behind the physical relations between the two was false promise of marriage, which was made by the accused with the victim. There is no possibility of false implication of the present applicant in this case. Offence committed by the applicant is very serious.

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

7. It appears that first relation between the two was made when some intoxicant was administered to the victim by the applicant and physical relations were made with her but no FIR was lodged against the present applicant after the first incident rather she continued to meet and make physical relations with the applicant. It also appears that the victim was major and was very well knowing the consequences of her act. Investigation in the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the I.O.

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. 3 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025

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 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(3) 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. 4 NABAIL No. 10069 of 2025 (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.

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. December 10, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)