HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1989 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.0279 of 2025 under Secitons 333, 75(1), 64(B), 115(2), 352, 110, 316 (1) BNS, Police Chanda, District Sultanpur. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, the applicant, who is the jeth of the victim, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation of rape is false. Learned counsel further submits that the brother of the applicant, namely Shivsahay Yadav, filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 19.07.2025. In the said petition, it has been alleged that on 17.07.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., the brother of the applicant was assaulted by his in-laws. It is contended that on the very next day, as a counterblast and to exert pressure in the matrimonial proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ram Sahay Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, has fully supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS are consistent and there is no material improvement therein, and the allegation of rape is specifically made. It is thus contended that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail. Perused the record. On due consideration to the allegations levelled by the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS against the applicant, coupled with the fact that as many as ten injuries have been found on the person of the victim as per the medico-legal examination report, and considering the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed, which is supported by corroborative material on record, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is well settled that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been falsely implicated or where no material exists to justify custodial interrogation. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. December 18, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S NABAIL No. 1989 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench