Anil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 292 of 2026

Anil

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sumit Chauhan, Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ambrish Kumar

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶11

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS has been filed by the accused-applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 05 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 140(3) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 (old Sections 376, 365, 120-B IPC), Police Station Baundi, District Bahraich.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail by passing order dated 16.03.2026, for convenience, the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶13

"1. Heard.

¶14

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No. 05 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 140(3), 61(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short "B.N.S."), Police Station- Baundi, District-Bahraich.

¶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 namely Sri Sumit Chauhan and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocates, who appeared for the applicant and Sri Ambrish Kumar, Advocate, who appeared for opposite party

¶16

NABAIL No. 292 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

no.2 and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A., who appeared for the State, including the following :-

¶19

(i) According to the FIR the applicant with the help of co-accused Chotu enticed away the prosecutrix/victim, aged about 20 years, who is sister of the informant.

¶20

(ii) According to the statement of prosecutrix/victim recorded in terms of Section 180 BNSS by the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.'), the applicant is the friend of co-accused Saroj and the applicant introduced the prosecutrix/victim to Saroj and this statement further indicates that prosecutrix/victim and co-accused Saroj were in touch. From this statement it also transpires that prosecutrix was having an affair with Saroj and co-accused Saroj established physical relations forcefully with the prosecutrix with the help of co-accused Chotu.

¶21

(iii) The statement of prosecutrix/victim recorded before the Magistrate in terms of Section 183 BNS, indicates that on the place of crime the applicant was present, though his presence was not indicated by the prosecutrix/victim while making the statement before the I.O. and in this view of the matter it is apparent that prosecutrix/victim has changed her version and being so the prosecutrix/victim is not a sterling witness. This statement further indicates that applicant and coaccused Saroj dropped the prosecutrix/victim at the house of sister of co-accused Saroj, which is incorrect.

¶22

4. It is further stated that upon due examination doctor concerned could not opined that it is a case of sexual violence as he could not find any injury external or internal on the body of the prosecutrix/victim.

¶23

5. From the conjoint reading of statement(s) of prosecutrix/victim recorded in terms of 180 and 183 BNSS, it is apparent that allegations levelled against the applicant by the victim are not correct.

¶24

6. It is also stated that according to the prosecution/victim the co-accused Saroj and Chotu are brother and as such it is apparent that with oblique motive or under the pressure of the family members the prosecution/victim has levelled allegations against the accused persons

¶25

7. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the applicant is entitled to interim protection.

¶26

8. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accusedapplicant- Anil 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 of the accused-applicant, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House

¶27

NABAIL No. 292 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

Officer of the Police Station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

(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

¶32

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

¶33

9. List/put up this application on 27.03.2026 within top twenty cases. "

¶34

Sri Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant/informant is neither present nor filed any counter affidavit till date and this Court has already passed an order dated 13.02.2026 that in case, learned counsel for the informant will not appear on the next date of listing, the case shall not be adjourned and appropriate orders would be passed in the first call.

¶35

Learned AGA on the basis of instruction received has submitted that there is nothing new brought in the instruction to oppose the anticipatory bail on the grounds on which ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted by this Court.

¶36

Upon due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the ad-interim bail granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed and the present anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of order dated 16.03.2026 while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant - Anil till disposal of the trial, the applicant shall appear before the court concerned and furnish bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial/concerned Court/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :-

¶37

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

¶38

(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;

¶39

NABAIL No. 292 of 2026

¶40

4

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶46

April 23, 2026

¶47

Nitesh

¶48

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

Anil v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

X, Juvenile (Minor) Thru. Her Natural Guardian / Mother Z vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

X (Juvenile Delinquent) Thru. His Real Brother Z vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Nirmala Mishra and Another vs Ashish Kumar Singh, S.D.M., Tehsil Amethi, Distt. Amethi

M/S Global Enterprises Thru. Its Pro. Mohd. Mudassir Ahmad vs Union of India, Thru. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Revenue New Delhi and 2 Others

Naresh Pal Singh vs Shri Durga Shankar Mishra Chief Secy. State of U.P. Thru. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others