HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 764 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Sri Rajesh Kumar Dhuriya, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama today in Court on behalf of the opposite party No.2/complainant, which is taken on record. 2. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. 3. In compliance of the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, victim "X" has been brought before this Court by Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Sub- Inspector and Lady Head Constable Ms. Priyanka Kushwaha. Relevant part of the order (paras 12 and 13) is extracted below : "12.List this case on 11th August, 2025. On that date, the present applicant as well as prosecutrix alongwith complainant shall appear in person to apprise the Court as to whether any positive steps have been taken to save the modesty of the prosecutrix. 13.The interim anticipatory bail order may be extended on the next date or this order may be made absolute considering the conduct of the applicant." 4. The applicant Vaibhav Singh is also present before this Court, who has been identified by his counsel Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra. 5. Upon a query made by the Court, the applicant has refused to marry the victim. The reason assigned by the applicant for not marrying the victim is that she belongs to a different caste, although relationship with the victim has been admitted by the applicant before this court for the last three years. The victim, on the other hand, has stated that she is willing to marry the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra has submitted that the applicant and victim belong to different caste(s) and, therefore, the parents of the applicant are not willing to solemnize the marriage of the applicant with the victim. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Nishad, Rajesh Kumar Dhuriya Vaibhav Singh @ Chhotu Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the application has submitted that it is an exceptional case and custodial interrogation is required in this case. In case this application is allowed, the accused applicant may abscond and threat the prosecution witnesses. 8. I have considered the submission(s) advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also considered the statement made before this court by the accused applicant and the victim, present today in court. 9. Before this Court today, the applicant has accepted the relation with the victim for the past three years. This Court has gone through the stipulation made in the interim order dated 03.07.2025, particularly, in paragraphs 12 and 13 which is extracted above, where it is specifically provided that interim anticipatory bail order may be extended on the next date considering the conduct of the applicant. 10. The order appears to have been passed to save the modesty of the prosecutrix, as is evident from paragraph 12 of the aforesaid order. In the bail application also, the love affairs and relationship with the victim has been admitted in paragraph 17 of the bail application. From the statement of the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that only due to caste difference the applicant has refused to marry the victim. 11. It does not appear to be a case of false implication or the applicant has been implicated only to injure his reputation. The victim has, in an unequivocal terms, answered the query of the court. She was in love relationship for the last five years as stated by her in her statement under Section 183 BNSS and made physical relationship during this period. She has stated that she wishes to marry the accused applicant. 12. The investigation is going on. Custodial interrogation may be necessary. This Court is abstaining itself for recording any finding on merit. Considering the conduct of the applicant, the fact that the investigation is going on, gravity of the offence, admitted relationship by the applicant with the victim, it does not appear to be a case of false implication or the applicant has been implicated to injure his reputation. Prima facie, there appears to be no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement of the victim under section 183 BNSS. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise this Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS. 13. The application is rejected and the interim protection granted vide order dated 3.7.2025 stands vacated. August 26, 2025 Arvind NABAIL No. 764 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench