Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9828 of 2025

Sunil Kumar

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

¶5

Court No. - 71

¶6

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

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

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Sunil Kumar in criminal case no. 1195 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 798 of 2017 under sections 354-A, 452, 504, 506, 376, 511 I.P.C., P.S.- Jagdishpura, District- Agra.

¶9

The present accused applicant due to the animosity and dispute with the husband of the victim entered into her house and forcefully made an attempt to commit rape upon the lady. FIR was lodged which culminated into charge sheet.

¶10

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. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is bundle of false facts and as a matter of fact in a commercial matter a partnership was running between the accused applicant and the husband of the victim wherein some financial loss occurred to the accused applicant and when he demanded the same the present false FIR was lodged against him. It is also submitted that there are some important improvements in the statements of the victim herself recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and for the first time in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate she alleged the offence of attempt to commit rape against the accused applicant whereas this fact does not find place either in the FIR or in the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim herself. It is further submitted that the victim was never medically examined and there was no medical report or the statement of the doctor available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the applicant has been granted interim protection in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23695 of 2017 by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.11.2017 and the said liberty has never misused by him. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section

¶13

NABAIL No. 9828 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶20

"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.

¶21

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 principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶22

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, and keeping in view the contradictions occurred in the statements of the victim and the FIR itself, 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.

¶23

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

NABAIL No. 9828 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

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 :-

¶27

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.

¶28

ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

December 10, 2025 Fhd

¶33

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Goyal vs State of U.P.

Guddu Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Man Mohan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Surat Patel and Another vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Bacchi vs State of U.P. and Another