Imran Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Sajeet Kumar Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. This is the second application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0027 of 2025, under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi. The first application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.479 of 2025 was rejected by means of an order dated 19.05.2025 on the ground that an interim order granted by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1195 of 2025 staying the arrest of the applicant was operative on that date and therefore there was no apprehension of the applicant's arrest.

3. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by means of an order dated 04.11.2025 stating that subsequent to filing of the writ petition a charge sheet dated 03.03.2025 has been filed. After the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, which was rejected by means of an order dated

07.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I Raebareli and thereafter this second application has been filed.

4. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on

01.02.2025 alleging that the complainant is a married woman, her husband lives abroad. The applicant belongs to the family of complainant's husband and he used to visit her matrimonial home. On 13.10.2020 the applicant had 2 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 taken her to Lucknow under the pretext of his examination and he made her consume some intoxicating substance and thereafter he took her to a hotel in a semi conscious condition, forcibly raped her and prepared an obscene video. Upon regaining consciousness the complainant started crying whereupon the applicant threatened to spread her obscene video virally. Thereafter, blackmailing her on the strength of video the applicant repetitively took her to various hotels and raped her. She also alleged that by blackmailing her the applicant has extracted Rs.1,00,000/- cash and Rs.1,30,000/- through bank transfer from her. When the family members of her husband came to know about it they called her husband, who divorced her.

5. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 180 BNSS she stated that she had got married eleven years ago and her husband is living abroad. The applicant used to visit her home. Initially he surreptitiously prepared her photo and video and showed it to some villagers. Upon coming to know about it the complainant asked the applicant to delete the photo and video and for this reason an altercation had taken place in March, 2020 and the family members of the complainant and the applicant were not on talking terms for 3-4 months. Thereafter, the applicant took her to Lucknow under the pretext of his studies and examination on 13.10.2020. After stating the aforesaid facts the complainant reiterated the F.I.R. version

6. The medico legal examination report of the complainant did not reveal anything significant and it reports no injury, no laceration, no signs of struggle and no tear at the time of examination. The medico legal examination report also mentions that the complainant has a son aged about 7 years. The F.S.L. report also does not contain any finding which may support the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.

7. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 183 BNSS she stated that she is a married lady aged 31 years. Her husband lives abroad and the applicant is cousin of her husband. She reiterated the F.I.R. version in the statement and stated that the applicant had forcibly made physical relations with her against her wishes, continuously for five years.

8. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of two independent witnesses who stated that the complainant and the accused, both are related to them. Although, the complainant alleged relationship with the applicant continuously for a very long period no person had any knowledge regarding this and they came to know about it only after registration of F.I.R.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is presently aged about 23 years, he is innocent, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present 3 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 case. The applicant is working as Agniveer in Indian Army.

10. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1195 of 2025 a Division Bench of this court had passed an interim order dated 11.02.2025 staying the arrest of the applicant wherein it is inter alia observed that the allegations in the F.I.R. show that the relationship was continuing at least for the past five years when the petitioner was merely about 18 years and the complainant is an older married woman.

11. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application and he has repetitively harped upon the fact of monetary transactions between the parties.

12. The allegation levelled in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant in the statements recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS indicate that although the victim is a lady who had got married about 11 years prior to lodging of F.I.R. and she is having a son aged about 7 years and the applicant is cousin of her husband, these facts were not disclosed in the F.I.R. There is no material to support the allegation of complainant that the applicant has been forcibly making physical relations with her continuously for a long period of five years. As per the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 180 BNSS initially an altercation took place between the family of the parties in March 2020 during which period they were not at talking terms and thereafter their relations resumed and continued for a very long period from which prima facie it appears that there were illicit consensual relations between the complainant and the applicant. The monetary transaction between the complainant and the applicant prima facie do not support the allegation of commission of rape continuously for the period of five years.

13. While clarifying that the aforesaid observations have been made for the purposes of decision of this application only and the same should not affect the trial of the case I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

14. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Imran Ahmad before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 4 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. November 15, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Sajeet Kumar Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. This is the second application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0027 of 2025, under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi. The first application bearing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.479 of 2025 was rejected by means of an order dated 19.05.2025 on the ground that an interim order granted by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1195 of 2025 staying the arrest of the applicant was operative on that date and therefore there was no apprehension of the applicant's arrest.

3. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by means of an order dated 04.11.2025 stating that subsequent to filing of the writ petition a charge sheet dated 03.03.2025 has been filed. After the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn the petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, which was rejected by means of an order dated

07.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I Raebareli and thereafter this second application has been filed.

4. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on

01.02.2025 alleging that the complainant is a married woman, her husband lives abroad. The applicant belongs to the family of complainant's husband and he used to visit her matrimonial home. On 13.10.2020 the applicant had 2 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 taken her to Lucknow under the pretext of his examination and he made her consume some intoxicating substance and thereafter he took her to a hotel in a semi conscious condition, forcibly raped her and prepared an obscene video. Upon regaining consciousness the complainant started crying whereupon the applicant threatened to spread her obscene video virally. Thereafter, blackmailing her on the strength of video the applicant repetitively took her to various hotels and raped her. She also alleged that by blackmailing her the applicant has extracted Rs.1,00,000/- cash and Rs.1,30,000/- through bank transfer from her. When the family members of her husband came to know about it they called her husband, who divorced her.

5. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 180 BNSS she stated that she had got married eleven years ago and her husband is living abroad. The applicant used to visit her home. Initially he surreptitiously prepared her photo and video and showed it to some villagers. Upon coming to know about it the complainant asked the applicant to delete the photo and video and for this reason an altercation had taken place in March, 2020 and the family members of the complainant and the applicant were not on talking terms for 3-4 months. Thereafter, the applicant took her to Lucknow under the pretext of his studies and examination on 13.10.2020. After stating the aforesaid facts the complainant reiterated the F.I.R. version

6. The medico legal examination report of the complainant did not reveal anything significant and it reports no injury, no laceration, no signs of struggle and no tear at the time of examination. The medico legal examination report also mentions that the complainant has a son aged about 7 years. The F.S.L. report also does not contain any finding which may support the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.

7. In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 183 BNSS she stated that she is a married lady aged 31 years. Her husband lives abroad and the applicant is cousin of her husband. She reiterated the F.I.R. version in the statement and stated that the applicant had forcibly made physical relations with her against her wishes, continuously for five years.

8. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of two independent witnesses who stated that the complainant and the accused, both are related to them. Although, the complainant alleged relationship with the applicant continuously for a very long period no person had any knowledge regarding this and they came to know about it only after registration of F.I.R.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is presently aged about 23 years, he is innocent, he has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the present 3 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 case. The applicant is working as Agniveer in Indian Army.

10. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1195 of 2025 a Division Bench of this court had passed an interim order dated 11.02.2025 staying the arrest of the applicant wherein it is inter alia observed that the allegations in the F.I.R. show that the relationship was continuing at least for the past five years when the petitioner was merely about 18 years and the complainant is an older married woman.

11. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application and he has repetitively harped upon the fact of monetary transactions between the parties.

12. The allegation levelled in the F.I.R. and the statement of the complainant in the statements recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS indicate that although the victim is a lady who had got married about 11 years prior to lodging of F.I.R. and she is having a son aged about 7 years and the applicant is cousin of her husband, these facts were not disclosed in the F.I.R. There is no material to support the allegation of complainant that the applicant has been forcibly making physical relations with her continuously for a long period of five years. As per the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 180 BNSS initially an altercation took place between the family of the parties in March 2020 during which period they were not at talking terms and thereafter their relations resumed and continued for a very long period from which prima facie it appears that there were illicit consensual relations between the complainant and the applicant. The monetary transaction between the complainant and the applicant prima facie do not support the allegation of commission of rape continuously for the period of five years.

13. While clarifying that the aforesaid observations have been made for the purposes of decision of this application only and the same should not affect the trial of the case I am of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

14. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Imran Ahmad before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 4 NABAIL No. 1711 of 2025 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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. November 15, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench