Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 852 of 2026

¶3

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Another	Lko.	And .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Gaurav Mishra, Anoop Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Shri Divyanshu Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶10

Heard Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶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. 423 of 2025, under Sections 64(1) B.N.S (old Section 376 I.P.C), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 26.04.2025 under Sections 333 and 74 BNS (old Sections 452 and 354 IPC) was lodged against the applicant alleging therein that on 25.04.2025 at about 2:00 a.m., when the informant/victim was sleeping in her house, the applicant knocked at the door and thereafter forcibly entered the house and started misbehaving with her. On her cries, people nearby came there and the applicant ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, after recording the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, Section 64(1) BNS (old Section 376 IPC) was added.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant herself is the alleged victim. In the FIR, she only alleged that the applicant misbehaved with her. However, while recording her statement under Section 180 BNSS, she improved her version and stated that the applicant tried to put his hand inside her petticoat and at that time her husband came there. While recording her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she again improved her version and

¶14

NABAIL No. 852 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

stated that the applicant forcibly unclothed her and made physical relations with her and at that time her husband came there, due to which the applicant ran away.

¶17

It is further submitted that the informant/victim denied medical examination. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. He further submitted that the informant/victim had taken a loan from the applicant and when the applicant started pressurizing her for refund of the same, he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶18

It is also submitted that in the FIR, the informant stated that on her cries nearby people came there, whereas in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she deleted the said fact and introduced her husband in place of the neighbours.

¶19

It is further submitted that in paragraph nos. 34 and 35 of the affidavit filed alongwith present anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant undertakes that he shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel and he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending arrest by the Police and that is why, he has approached this Court by filing the present anticipatory bail application. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant/victim, on being asked whether he wants to file counter affidavit, he has submitted that he does not want to file any counter affidavit and wants to argue the matter finally at this stage itself. He submitted that the informant denied medical examination as she was eight months pregnant at that time. He further submitted that since the alleged incident took place at about 2:00 a.m., there was no question of any eyewitness being present there. However, he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, particularly the fact that in the FIR itself the informant stated that on her cries nearby people came there and the applicant ran away from the place of occurrence.

¶22

Learned counsel for the informant/victim also could not dispute the averment made in the affidavit that the informant had taken a loan from the applicant and when he demanded refund of the same, he was falsely implicated in the present case. The only submission made by him was that it was not the proper time for demanding refund of money.

¶23

On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant but unable to

¶24

NABAIL No. 852 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶27

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, that the informant herself is the alleged victim. However, in the FIR she did not make any allegation under Section 64(1) BNS but in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, she has improved her version. In the FIR there was no allegation regarding outraging of modesty or commission of rape. Thereafter, she improved her version in her subsequent statements. She also introduced the presence of her husband in her statements, whereas in the FIR she had specifically stated that on her cries people nearby came there. Thus, the prosecution story prima facie appears to be highly doubtful at this stage.

¶28

As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

¶29

In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [AIR 1994 SC 1349], the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid facts and looking into the circumstances, it is found that there is a case registered against the applicant and it cannot be definitely said when the police may arrest him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The applicant has not previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by the Court; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant there is no possibility of fleeing from the judicial proceedings and in the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court finds it a fit case to issue order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482 BNSS.

¶31

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail in the

¶32

NABAIL No. 852 of 2026

¶33

4

¶34

light of aforesaid judgments , subject to his continued cooperation in the investigation.

¶35

In the event of arrest, let the accused-applicant- Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat be released forthwith in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶36

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

¶37

(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;

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

May 12, 2026 DiVYa

¶43

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶44

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Vijay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Irfan Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Arbaz @ Mohd. Arbaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Ali Ahmad @ Nanke vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

V.P. Alias Kaushal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others