Ajeet Singh @ Abhishek Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

This Court by its order dated 13.03.2026 has passed a detailed order granting ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicant by issuing notice to respondent no. 2. For convenience, the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

"1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶14

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.330 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Bangarmau, District-Unnao.

¶15

3. For the purposes of entertaining present application as also for protecting the interest of the applicant, this Court considered the various aspects of the case as pointed out by learned Counsel for the parties, who are present before this Court, including the following :-

¶16

(i) An FIR was lodged on 10.09.2021 as FIR/Case Crime No.0330 of 2021, under Section(s) 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at P.S.-Bangarmau, DistrictUnnao.

¶17

(ii) According to the FIR, the applicant presently aged about 22 years, on 09.09.2021 at about 2 PM, tried to outrage the modesty of the victim (daughter of informant), aged about 15 years, and when the said crime was opposed by the victim, she was assaulted by the applicant with kicks and fists. The FIR also indicates that on hue and cry, the brother-in-law of the informant and son of the informant rushed to the spot/alleged place of crime and therefore, the applicant fled away on the motorcycle of his friend namely Vikas Singh from the place of alleged crime.

¶18

(iii) Before the Magistrate, the victim changed the basic story indicated in the FIR, as would appear from the copy of the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., annexed as

¶19

ABAIL No. 213 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

Annexure No.7 to the present application. According to this statement, the applicant established physical relations forcefully with the victim on 09.09.2021 at about 2 PM.

¶22

(iv) According to the medical report the victim sustained only one simple injury, which could be caused by hard and blunt object and the concerned doctor could not opine that it is a case of sexual violence.

¶23

(v) The Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') upon considering the statements of victim as also medical opinion as also CCTV footage of the Hospital at Hayatnagar of 13:31 hours, situated about 5 km away from the place of crime, in which Nitin and Ajeet Singh/applicant were present as also the CDR report related to Ajeet and Vikas, submitted the final report dated 25.11.2021.

¶24

(vi) To the final report dated 25.11.2021, a protest application was filed and on the protest application the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Unnao, vide order dated 27.04.2023 directed the I.O. to further investigate the matter.

¶25

(vii) In compliance of order dated 27.04.2023, the I.O. carried out the investigation and on completion of investigation again submitted the final report on 24.08.2023.

¶26

(viii) To the final report dated 24.08.2023, a protest application was again filed and vide order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao the said protest petition has been treated as complaint case and based upon the statement(s) including the statement(s) of victim as also the medical evidence, the trial court summoned the present applicant to face trial for the offence under Section(s) 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

¶27

4. This Court also considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant that during investigation the applicant co-operated with the I.O. and all the evidences collected by I.O. is already on record and this evidence cannot be tampered by the applicant and applicant is not in a position to influence the victim and also that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. In this regard reference has been placed on judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Alam versus The State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116.

¶28

5. Considering the above aspects of the matter including that the applicant has been summoned by the trial court in a complaint case and also the nature of the allegations made against the applicant and also the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the trial and the fact that material collected by the I.O. is on record and also the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Musheer Alam versus The State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant.

¶29

6. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accusedapplicant-Ajeet Singh alias Abhiishek Pratap Singh, be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties, out of which one shall be the family member/close relative of the accused-applicant, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

ABAIL No. 213 of 2026

¶31

3

¶32

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶33

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶34

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶35

7. Issue notice, returnable at an early date. Steps in this regard be taken within seven working days.

¶36

8. List/put up this application on 24.03.2026 within top twenty cases.

¶37

9. Learned AGA is directed to file an affidavit in response to this application annexing therewith the proof of service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 through concerned police officer before this Court when the case is listed next."

¶38

As per report submitted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao dated 23.03.2026, notice has been served upon respondent no. 2-complainant on 22.03.2026 and upon respondent no. 3 through his father-Sarvesh Kumar (the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2) but no one has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶39

Learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has submitted that except the statement of the alleged victim and her family members, nothing adverse material is available on record against the applicant which has already been considered.

¶40

In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove and no new fact has been brought by learned AGA to the notice of the Court, the anticipatory bail order is hereby confirmed also in the light of judgment passed in the case of Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2025) SCC Online SC 116] , wherein it has been held that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and on that unusual practice, the Court do not want to make any comment except that it makes no sense and as the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the accused was asked to appear before the court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court and there is no point in making formal arrest. The relevant paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the judgment in the case of Musheer Alam (supra), reads as under:-

¶41

"8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense.

¶42

ABAIL No. 213 of 2026

¶43

4

¶44

9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶45

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant- Ajeet Singh @ Abhishek Pratap Singh till disposal of the trial by appearing before the court concerned and should furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶46

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and shall not abscond;

¶47

(ii) that 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶48

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶49

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶50

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶51

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.

¶52

April 1, 2026

¶53

Nitesh

¶54

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶55

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajeet Singh @ Abhishek Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Singh @ Abhishek Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Nandini Sadashiv Dubey and Another vs Shri Vijay Ranjan Srivastava Naib Tehsildar Sumerpur Unnao

Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Keval vs Sri Akash Deep Badhawan Divisional Forest Officer Barabanki Forest Division Barabanki and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

M/S Awadh Traders Thru. Authorized Signatory Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others