Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Sheshadri Trivedi and Shri Lalit Kumar Pandey for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vipin Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 312 of 2025, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 69 BNS, P.S.- Deoband, District- Saharanpur.

4. The relationship between the accused applicant and the victim lady started through facebook and since May 2018 on the false pretext of marriage the present accused allegedly made physical relations with her and several times her pregnancy was also terminated by him and whenever she requested to perform marriage with the applicant he refused. It is also alleged that some videos and photograph relating to the victim were also prepared by him and he threatened her to make it viral on social media if she refused to have physical contact with him whereas he himself is a married person. FIR was lodged which culminated into charge sheet.

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.

6. It is further submitted that this is a case of physical relations between the two major persons of opposite sex. The victim of this case was never compelled by the accused applicant to have physical relations with him and their relations were consensual relations. The victim was very well aware of the marital status of the accused applicant. Charge sheet in this matter has been submitted in an arbitrary manner by the I.O. of this case since the victim was a major lady and she was very well knowing as to what are the consequences of her acts of having physical relations with the accused. It is also submitted that even after several abortion she did not leave the applicant and continued her relations with him. It is further submitted that during investigation the applicant has granted protection by this Court vide order dated 25.6.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12312 of 2025. Now after filing of the charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed an Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 45399 of 2025 before this Court, which is still pending. In case applicant is 2 NABAIL No. 10500 of 2025 granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

8. It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation. Even after having knowledge of the marital status of applicant she herself continued physical relations with him and during the entire period of relationship since 2018 no complaint was ever made to any authority by the victim regarding the fraudulent act of the accused applicant.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 3 NABAIL No. 10500 of 2025 principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

13. 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.

14. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

15. 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.

16. 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. December 12, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Sheshadri Trivedi and Shri Lalit Kumar Pandey for the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

3. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Vipin Kumar in connection with Case Crime No. 312 of 2025, under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 69 BNS, P.S.- Deoband, District- Saharanpur.

4. The relationship between the accused applicant and the victim lady started through facebook and since May 2018 on the false pretext of marriage the present accused allegedly made physical relations with her and several times her pregnancy was also terminated by him and whenever she requested to perform marriage with the applicant he refused. It is also alleged that some videos and photograph relating to the victim were also prepared by him and he threatened her to make it viral on social media if she refused to have physical contact with him whereas he himself is a married person. FIR was lodged which culminated into charge sheet.

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.

6. It is further submitted that this is a case of physical relations between the two major persons of opposite sex. The victim of this case was never compelled by the accused applicant to have physical relations with him and their relations were consensual relations. The victim was very well aware of the marital status of the accused applicant. Charge sheet in this matter has been submitted in an arbitrary manner by the I.O. of this case since the victim was a major lady and she was very well knowing as to what are the consequences of her acts of having physical relations with the accused. It is also submitted that even after several abortion she did not leave the applicant and continued her relations with him. It is further submitted that during investigation the applicant has granted protection by this Court vide order dated 25.6.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12312 of 2025. Now after filing of the charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed an Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 45399 of 2025 before this Court, which is still pending. In case applicant is 2 NABAIL No. 10500 of 2025 granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

8. It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation. Even after having knowledge of the marital status of applicant she herself continued physical relations with him and during the entire period of relationship since 2018 no complaint was ever made to any authority by the victim regarding the fraudulent act of the accused applicant.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 3 NABAIL No. 10500 of 2025 principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

13. 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.

14. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

15. 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.

16. 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. December 12, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)