Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 7973 of 2025 Ram Lakhan State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Jai Raj Singh Tomar, Kavita Tomar : : G.A., Rohit Nandan Singh Court No. - 71 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been moved by the applicant after rejecting his anticipatory bail application by the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat), seeking Anticipatory Bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2024, under Sections 352, 351(2), 108 BNS, Police Station Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is father of victim (now deceased), got a first information report lodged on 05.10.2024 against Sahil, Ram Lakhan, Ranno and Chhutkaau stating inter alia that on 30.09.2024 in the night, Sahil entered into his house and molested his daughter. When he came to know about this, he complained about it to Sahil’s father. Sahil’s mother-Ranno, his brother-in-law-Chhutkaau and Sahil’s father Ram Lakhan, all in unison, abused his daughter and all his family members and threatened to kill them. Being harassed, his daughter committed suicide on 02.10.2024 in afternoon by hanging herself with a scarf on a tree on the bank of pond situated behind his house. Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant is that on 30.09.2024, complainant Rajesh, who is father of the deceased, made a phone call to the mobile police by dialing nos. 100 and 112, on which police reached at his house and after apprehending his daughter and son of the applicant, took them to the police station and later son of the applicant was released from the police station on 01.10.2024 at about 01:00 P.M after getting the compromise executed between the parties. On 02.10.2024, daughter of the complainant committed suicide, regarding which complainant 2 NABAIL No. 7973 of 2025 got the F.I.R. lodged on 05.10.2024. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant to constitute an offence under Sections 108, 351(2), 352 BNS, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. Per contra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State of U.P. and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that in fact, in the night of 30.09.2024, Sahil, who is son of the applicant, barged into the house of the complainant and committed misdeed with his daughter. As soon as he came to know, he called police by dialing 112. Thereafter, Ram Lakhan, Ranno and Chhutkaau abused and extended threat of life to the victim and his family members. On account of the said incident, complainant's daughter went under depression and committed suicide by hanging herself on a tree. It is also pointed out that anticipatory bail application of co-accused Rani Devi @ Ranno, who is wife of the applicant, has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS No. 7596 of 2025 and case of present applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Rani Devi @ Ranno. It is further submitted that in this case, after culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet has also been submitted on 25.01.2025 against the applicant and other co-accused persons, on which concerned Court took cognizance and summoned them but they did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, non-bailable warrant has been issued on 09.09.2025 and later on, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued on 03.10.2025, therefore, as on date, cognizable offence is made out against the applicant and it cannot be presumed that he has been falsely implicated. This Court is of the view that no standard or straitjacket formula can be laid down with regard to sensitivity of each individuals, because different people behave differently in same situation. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Since allegation of the prosecution and defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial Court, therefore, this Court is not recording any finding on merits of the case. Object of Section 482 BNSS, 2023 is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains. It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this court can-not 3 NABAIL No. 7973 of 2025 be put in a straitjacket formula, but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from Justice, apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society, etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as well as considering the reasons noted above, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 482 BNSS is made out in favour of applicant. Accordingly this application under Section 482 BNSS is rejected. It is clarified that observations made in this order at this stage is limited for the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The concerned Court below shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions according to law on the basis of materials / evidences on record. October 10, 2025 Shubham (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad