HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1788 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Heard Sri P.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0342 of 2024, under Sections- 70(1), 140(1), 351(2), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Krishna Nagar District- Lucknow. with a prayer to enlarge him on bail. While pressing the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the as per the FIR the accused forcefully abducted the prosecutrix from the house of her brother in law situated at Krishna Nagar, Lucknow and took her to Azamgarh on bullet motorcycle and committed the crime, i.e. established physical relationship with her forcefully at Hotel Baba lodge, Azamgarh. It is also stated that from a perusal of the statement, which is annexed as Annexure No.3 recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short 'IO') in term of Section 108 BNSS, it is evident that the prosecutrix leveled allegations only against Angad Yadav. It is further stated that before the concerned magistrate, the prosecutrix changed the original version as would appear from the copy of statement recorded in terms of Section 183 BNSS, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the bail application. In continuation it is stated that according to the prosecutrix Angad Yadav, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : P.C.Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mohammad Sajid .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Aman Yadav and Rajesh had abducted the prosecutrix on four wheeler and on the way the vehicle was stopped and at the spot two persons were also present and these persons committed the crime i.e. forcefully established physical relationship with the prosecutrix in the vehicle. This statement of the prosecutrix also indicates that rape was committed by Angad at Hotel at Azamgarh. It is stated that neither bullet has been recovered nor the four wheeler has been recovered by the prosecution. Further submission is that medical evidence does not support the story of the prosecution, which was carried out on 27.07.2024 , i.e. after a delay of 10 days from the alleged date of incident, as indicated in the date of FIR. Learned A.G.A. vehementaly opposed the prayer of bail. Upon due consideration, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present bail application for the following reason:- (i) In the statement before the magistrate, the prosecutix indicated the complicity of one Rajesh, (ii) The CCTV footage of the reception at hotel Baba lodge indicates complicity of Sazid @ Rajesh as according to the CCTV footage this accused was seen with co-accused Angad Yadav and Aman Yadav. (iii) Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the present applicant is Mohammad Sajid, s/o Baddal @ Badal Shah and is not Sajid @ Rajesh. (iv) The issue as to whether Mohammad Sajid is Sajid @ Rajesh can be considered only by way of identification parade for which the custody of the applicant is required. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected. December 1, 2025 Arti/- NABAIL No. 1788 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench