Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48702 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1053 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Murat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Yadav,Shobh Nath Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Prakash Pathak Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Upendra Prakash Pathak, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.244/2025, under sections 64 (1), 351 (3) BNS & section 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha), 3 (2) (V) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Tikait Nagar, District-Barabanki. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 30.06.2025 at about 6:00 a.m., while the victim was returning home after easing herself, accused Ram Moorat, a resident of her village, attacked her, caught hold of her, and pressed her chest. On the arrival of Ghanshyam, son of Dargaprasad, the accused abused her using caste-based slurs, threatened to kill her, and then fled from the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident and that the allegations made in the FIR are false, fabricated, and motivated. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix does not support the allegations, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The applicant has been falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to extract monetary benefit under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act, whereas no offence has actually been committed. It is also contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Perused the record. From the perusal of the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, it appears that she has made allegations of rape and has also explained the reasons for not disclosing the same in her earlier statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. There is also an eye-witness account of Ghanshyam, who has supported the prosecution case. Though the medical examination does not corroborate the allegations, it is evident that the same was conducted after seven days of the incident. The statement of the victim under Section 183 BNSS stands duly corroborated by the testimony of eye-witness Ghanshyam. Hence, it cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. The offence alleged is grave and heinous in nature. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench