Anoop Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31672 of 2025

Anoop Chauhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Anoop Chauhan , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 326 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 352, 332-B B.N.S., Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 30.07.2025 by Pradyumn Gupta against the applicant under Sections 352, 351(3), 74 B.N.S. alleging therein that on 21.07.2025 at about 10 am he had gone out of his house and his daughter aged about 19 years was in the house wherein Anoop a boy of the village entered inside and caught-hold of the hand of his daughter, outraged her modesty and in the meantime he reached there and on seeing him Anoop tried to run away but he was apprehended by him and then he pushed him away and while hurling abuses & threatening them ran away. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that subsequently the first informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. changes the prosecution version and states

¶12

BAIL No. 31672 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

that the applicant committed rape upon his daughter. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 09 days. It is submitted that the victim also in her statement during investigation states of the applicant entering in her house and committing rape on her forcibly. It is submitted that the factum of rape is not borne out from the medical evidence in as much as the doctor found the hymen to be intact. It is submitted that there is a civil litigation going on between the family of the applicant and the family of the first informant for which an Original Suit No. 212 of 2025 (Sitaram Vs. Ayodhya and others) has been filed before the competent court on 03.04.2025. It is submitted that Sitaram is the grandfather of the applicant and the defendant no.3 Vashistha is the husband of Smt. Manju Devi the alleged witness of the incident who is bhabhi of the informant. It is submitted that during investigation the first informant does not state of his presence at the place of occurrence but states that his bhabhi Smt. Manju Devi reached the place of occurrence after which the applicant ran away. It is submitted that the prosecution story thus is not consistent and has been continuously improved just in order to give the case a different colour. It is further submitted that during investigation Section 74 B.N.S. has been converted to Section 64(1) B.N.S. and Section 332-B B.N.S. has been added. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.08.2025.

¶15

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶16

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a major girl. The prosecution story is not consistent. The first information report states of first informant reaching the place of occurrence and seeing the applicant outraging the modesty of his daughter. Subsequently he does not state of reaching there but states of Smt. Manju Devi his bhabhi reaching the place of occurrence and the factum of commission of rape is then introduced in the present case. Civil litigation is going on between the family of the applicant and the family of the informant. The victim then states of rape being committed on her by the applicant. The medical evidence does not corroborate with the prosecution version.

¶17

BAIL No. 31672 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Let the applicant- Anoop Chauhan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

¶26

BAIL No. 31672 of 2025

¶27

4

¶28

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶29

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶30

The bail application is allowed .

¶31

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

September 16, 2025 AS Rathore

¶33

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Chauhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases