Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39918 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 744 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohammad Faizan Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with. 3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime/ FIR No.240 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 333, 352, 351(3), 131 of BNS, 2023 and Section 67A of I.T. Act, 2000, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that even as per the prosecution story narrated in the FIR, the allegation is three years old but the FIR has been lodged on 04.04.2025 without explaining the reason of delay. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.3, which is a WhatsApp chat between the applicant and the prosecutrix to show that the present applicant was avoiding the prosecutrix but the prosecutrix was deliberately trying to contact him. Two more WhatsApp chats have been shown to the Court during course of argument, showing that the prosecutrix is so desperate to contact the applicant but he is avoiding, the same is taken on record. He has also submitted that the prosecutrix is a married lady of aged about 40 years whose husband has been serving at Saudi Arabia. In absence of her husband, the prosecutrix tries to contact the other persons and the present applicant is also one of the victims. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that when he filed his anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court at Gonda, no evidence have been produced to show that the present applicant had clicked the obscene video of the prosecutrix and circulated the same. The present applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation inasmuch as the investigation is going on, therefore, his liberty may be protected. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A has shown the relevant copies of case diary showing that the brother of the prosecutrix has provided the pen drive to the investigating agency, wherein two obscene photos and one obscene video of the prosecutrix are available. Thereafter, the relevant certificate under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been obtained and the brother of the prosecutrix has been cautioned to preserve such pen drive inasmuch as the same may be produced before the learned trial court. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 183 BNSS before the learned trial court. Learned A.G.A. has stated that since the allegation of the prosecutrix is intact in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, wherein she has levelled specific allegation against the present applicant, the investigation is going on and one pen drive (supra) has been provided to the investigating agency, therefore, instead of seeking anticipatory bail, the present applicant may file his regular bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has also informed that the present applicant is having criminal history of three cases. However, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is having criminal history of four cases including this case and he has explained criminal history in Para 37 of the anticipatory bail application. 8. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the prosecutrix has levelled specific allegation of rape against the present applicant under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, one pen drive (supra) has been provided to the investigating agency of which the relevant certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been obtained, WhatsApp chats which have been shown to indicate that the present applicant and the prosecutrix used to share their messages and the fact that the investigation is still going on, therefore, I do not find any good ground, to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 9. 9. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. 10. However, it is always open to the present applicant to approach the learned trial court/ competent court to file his regular bail application and if such regular bail application is filed, the same may be heard and disposed of on merits, strictly in accordance with law with expedition, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and such application may be filed within a period of two weeks from today. 11. It is also expected that two mobile numbers have been provided by the applicant as recital to this effect has been given to the Para 17 of the anticipatory bail application belonging to the present applicant, therefore, the investigating agency shall examine those mobile numbers carefully and shall produce relevant evidence before the learned trial court concerned to the effect that as to whether it is the applicant, who has circulated the obscene photographs/ video of the prosecutrix. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench