Dismissed¶15

Dr Raj Roop v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026NABAIL/2685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; S.482 BNSS application; Case Crime No. 421 of 2024; Section 69 BNS; rape allegation by prosecutrix; defence of consensual relationship and failure to marry; charge-sheet filed after investigation; threat to informant to turn hostile; summoning order challenge pending U/s 528 B.N.S.S. No. 9484 of 2026; gravity of accusations; no good ground for bail; observations not to affect trial; Allahabad High Court; NABAIL No. 2685 of 2026; decided May 7, 2026; Jai Prakash Tiwari, J.

What did the court decide?

The allegations made in the First Information Report are specific and prima facie supported by the material collected during investigation, and the charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant after due investigation. ¶13

Dr Raj Roop Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Dr Raj Roop) is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024 under Section 69 BNS, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material on record and the overall facts and circumstances, there is no good ground for grant of anticipatory bail; the applicant may avail appropriate remedy for any grievance regarding the proceedings.

¶14

Key takeaways

Observations made in the anticipatory bail judgment shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS sought in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024, Section 69 BNS, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Prayagraj, during pendency of trial. The applicant pleaded innocence, asserting that the physical relationship with the victim was consensual and that mere failure to solemnize marriage would not attract criminal liability; a challenge to the summoning order was stated to be pending as Application U/s 528 B.N.S.S. No. 9484 of 2026. The State and the informant opposed, stating that according to the prosecutrix the applicant forcibly committed rape, that he was threatening her family to withdraw the case, and that a charge-sheet had been submitted. Holding that the FIR allegations were specific and prima facie supported by investigation material, and considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the Court (Jai Prakash Tiwari, J.) found no good ground for anticipatory bail and rejected the application without expressing any opinion on the merits, clarifying that its observations would not affect the trial Judge's independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2685 of 2026

¶3

Dr Raj Roop			.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sharda Chandra : Abhijeet	Prasad Maurya Mukherji,	Mishra, Subhash G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024 under Sections - 69 BNS, Police Station -Ghoorpur, District - Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that from the statements recorded during the course of investigation, it is evident that the physical relationship established between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature and mere failure to solemnize marriage at a later stage, would not attract criminal liability. Learned counsel further submitted that against the summoning order passed against the applicant, he has preferred an Application U/s 528 B.N.S.S. No. 9484 of 2026, which is still pending before the Court. It is contended that no offence, as alleged, has been committed by the applicant. It is also submitted that in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

NABAIL No. 2685 of 2026

¶11

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are specific and serious in nature. As per the version of the prosecutrix, the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that the applicant is continuously threatening the informant and her family members to withdraw the case and is exerting pressure upon them to turn hostile.They further submitted that the statements recorded during investigation corroborate the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that after due investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the First Information Report are specific and prima facie supported by the material collected during investigation. The charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant after due investigation.

¶14

Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material available on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. In case the applicant has any grievance with regard to the proceedings, he may avail appropriate remedy.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected .

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in the instant anticipatory bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

May 7, 2026

¶18

KK Patel

¶19

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Raj Roop v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Raj Roop v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mitthu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Archana Maddheshiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Husain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anchal Sharma vs State of U.P.

Indresh Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another