Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

2. Heard Shri Tabish Tarique, Shri Yash Giri and Shri Areeb Udeen, learned counsels for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.253 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506, 406, 323, 504 IPC, Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that the informant met the applicant through a website jeevansathi.com in January 2022 and he was informed that she was from scheduled caste. Subsequently they met and on false pretext of marriage the victim was enticed in love of applicant and physical relations were formed on various occasions. It was also alleged that the applicant had taken certain money from the informant on various grounds and subsequently date of 15.4.2022 was fixed for marriage. However thereafter the relationship turned sour and the applicant refused to marry her. In the light of the said allegations, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is aged about 41 years at the time of lodging of 2 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025 FIR and considering the relationship as alleged it was a consensual relationship which continued over a substantial period of time. He further argues that in terms of allegations levelled no allegations were levelled with respect to forming of physical relation without consent or on mistaken identity and thus no offence can be said to be made out under Section 376 IPC. It is argued that the applicant is apprehending arrest and thus may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. With respect to the delay in approaching this Court it is argued that earlier the applicant had approached this Court by filing a bail application and subsequently the applicant applied for bail before the SC/ST Court which was rejected and now the applicant apprehends his arrest without there being any material to suggest that the applicant is guilty of offence in question.

5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand states that proceedings under Section 18 SC/ST Act has been issued thus the applicant is not even entitled for anticipatory bail in view of the bar on grant of anticipatory bail by SC/ST Act.

6. For the sake of convenience Section 18 of SC/ST Act is reproduced below: "18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.— Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

7. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand responds by stating that the bar is by virtue of Section 18 SC/ST Act or Section 438 Cr.P.C. and there is no mention of Section 482 BNSS as such the bar by virtue of Section 18 SC/ST Act has no application in the case of the applicant. He further argues that even otherwise bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act will not apply where the applicant was pursing the remedies as are available under law. Substantiating the same reliance has been placed upon the order passed by this Court dated 20.7.2023 in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7420 of 2023 in re: Brijesh vs State of U.P and others wherein this Court had considered similar objections. 3 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025

8. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below: “11. Expostulating this objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that although a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant and he has been declared a proclaimed offender by the Court and a process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was also subsequently issued against him but since he was engaged in taking shelter of the Court of law by way of several legal proceedings and in the interregnum period such coercive processes were issued against him, he cannot be debarred from taking protection from arrest by way of anticipatory bail.

12. A perusal of the record reveals that the first anticipatory bail application was moved by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj on 21.10.2022 which was rejected by the said Court on 15.12.2022. In the charge sheet submitted against the applicant, the I.O. has mentioned that on 25.11.2022 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be initiated under the instructions of the Court and it explicitly shows that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant during pendency of the first anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Prayagraj. The record further reveals that the order for proclamation was passed by the Court on 2.12.2022 and the said order was also challenged before this Court by way of Cr. Appeal No. 9977 of 2022, which was filed on 12.12.2022 but the same was withdrawn on 20.12.2022. In the aforesaid appeal the factum of issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also disclosed.”

9. In view of the rival submissions and from the plain reading of the FIR prima facie the allegations are that on the promise of marriage physical relation were formed in between them for a substantially long period of time. There is no allegations of any force being used at any point of time. The tentative age of the victim is around 41 years and maturity that is expected was present while forming consensual relationship. The objections of learned counsel for the informant with respect to bar by virtue of section 18 SC/ST Act will not have relevance in view of the fact that present application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS and not under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

10. Considering that prima facie the material to link the applicant are not present and do not fall within the definition of Section 376 IPC, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 4 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025

11. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Dinesh Kumar Srivastava be released on anticipatory bail in the abovesaid first information report number till conclusion of trial on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. (d) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. December 2, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Tabish Tarique, Shri Yash Giri and Shri Areeb Udeen, learned counsels for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR No.253 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506, 406, 323, 504 IPC, Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that in terms of FIR it was alleged that the informant met the applicant through a website jeevansathi.com in January 2022 and he was informed that she was from scheduled caste. Subsequently they met and on false pretext of marriage the victim was enticed in love of applicant and physical relations were formed on various occasions. It was also alleged that the applicant had taken certain money from the informant on various grounds and subsequently date of 15.4.2022 was fixed for marriage. However thereafter the relationship turned sour and the applicant refused to marry her. In the light of the said allegations, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim is aged about 41 years at the time of lodging of 2 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025 FIR and considering the relationship as alleged it was a consensual relationship which continued over a substantial period of time. He further argues that in terms of allegations levelled no allegations were levelled with respect to forming of physical relation without consent or on mistaken identity and thus no offence can be said to be made out under Section 376 IPC. It is argued that the applicant is apprehending arrest and thus may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. With respect to the delay in approaching this Court it is argued that earlier the applicant had approached this Court by filing a bail application and subsequently the applicant applied for bail before the SC/ST Court which was rejected and now the applicant apprehends his arrest without there being any material to suggest that the applicant is guilty of offence in question.

5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand states that proceedings under Section 18 SC/ST Act has been issued thus the applicant is not even entitled for anticipatory bail in view of the bar on grant of anticipatory bail by SC/ST Act.

6. For the sake of convenience Section 18 of SC/ST Act is reproduced below: "18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.— Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

7. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand responds by stating that the bar is by virtue of Section 18 SC/ST Act or Section 438 Cr.P.C. and there is no mention of Section 482 BNSS as such the bar by virtue of Section 18 SC/ST Act has no application in the case of the applicant. He further argues that even otherwise bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act will not apply where the applicant was pursing the remedies as are available under law. Substantiating the same reliance has been placed upon the order passed by this Court dated 20.7.2023 in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7420 of 2023 in re: Brijesh vs State of U.P and others wherein this Court had considered similar objections. 3 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025

8. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below: “11. Expostulating this objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that although a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant and he has been declared a proclaimed offender by the Court and a process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was also subsequently issued against him but since he was engaged in taking shelter of the Court of law by way of several legal proceedings and in the interregnum period such coercive processes were issued against him, he cannot be debarred from taking protection from arrest by way of anticipatory bail.

12. A perusal of the record reveals that the first anticipatory bail application was moved by the applicant before the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj on 21.10.2022 which was rejected by the said Court on 15.12.2022. In the charge sheet submitted against the applicant, the I.O. has mentioned that on 25.11.2022 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be initiated under the instructions of the Court and it explicitly shows that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant during pendency of the first anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, Prayagraj. The record further reveals that the order for proclamation was passed by the Court on 2.12.2022 and the said order was also challenged before this Court by way of Cr. Appeal No. 9977 of 2022, which was filed on 12.12.2022 but the same was withdrawn on 20.12.2022. In the aforesaid appeal the factum of issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also disclosed.”

9. In view of the rival submissions and from the plain reading of the FIR prima facie the allegations are that on the promise of marriage physical relation were formed in between them for a substantially long period of time. There is no allegations of any force being used at any point of time. The tentative age of the victim is around 41 years and maturity that is expected was present while forming consensual relationship. The objections of learned counsel for the informant with respect to bar by virtue of section 18 SC/ST Act will not have relevance in view of the fact that present application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS and not under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

10. Considering that prima facie the material to link the applicant are not present and do not fall within the definition of Section 376 IPC, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 4 ABAIL No. 1333 of 2025

11. In the event of arrest, let the applicant Dinesh Kumar Srivastava be released on anticipatory bail in the abovesaid first information report number till conclusion of trial on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) 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. (d) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. December 2, 2025 J. K. Dinkar (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench