HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1116 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail incase crime no.469/2025 under section 85, 351 (2), 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State. 3. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant was married to the brother of the applicant-accused in February, 2023. It is further alleged that while her husband Deepak was residing in Pune, she was subjected to harassment by her in-laws for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. It is also alleged that the applicant forcibly established physical relations with her on several occasions against her will. When her husband came to know of this fact, he took her along to Pune. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is stated that the complainant was earlier married to one Ashok Kumar about 14 years ago and has two daughters from that wedlock, aged 12 and 9 years respectively. The marriage with Deepak is her second marriage. The applicant is only 19 years of age, has no criminal antecedents, and has been wrongly named in the case. 5. Learned AGA, however, has opposed the anticipatory bail application, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj @ Raaz .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) submitting that the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has fully supported the prosecution case. It is further pointed out that Writ Petition No. 6026 of 2025 (Raj @ Raaz v. State of U.P. and Others) filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the FIR has already been dismissed. Moreover, Deepak, the brother of the applicant, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS recorded before the Investigating Officer, has also supported the prosecution case. Thus, it is not a case of false implication. 6. Perused the record. 7. On perusal of the record and in view of the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, prima facie it does not appear to be a case of false implication. 8. Accordingly, no case for anticipatory bail is made out, and the application stands dismissed. September 1, 2025 R.C. NABAIL No. 1116 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench