Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84535 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2806 of 2025 Applicant :- Onkar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard Shri Ravi Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Jai Kishan Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 212 of 2023, under Sections 354, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation Sections 354, 376 I.P.C. were dropped. Thereafter, applicant filed anticipatory bail application under Section 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and he was granted bail. After submission of charge sheet the informant moved protest petition, whereupon the court concerned took cognizance in the matter under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicant, whereupon the applicant moved anticipatory bail application before the court concerned under Sections 354, 376 I.P.C., which was rejected. Thus, learned counsel submits that there is an apprehension that the applicant may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate trial and he would appear as and when required by the court concerned. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail by contending that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is specific allegation of rape against the applicant, therefore, the court concerned has took cognizance under Sections 354, 376 I.P.C. against the applicant. 5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 6. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad