Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86960 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4622 of 2024 Applicant :- Alkesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 1251 of 2019, under Section 376-D, 506, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on anticipatory bail. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the informant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon the court concerned directed to lodge the F.I.R. The allegation is that the applicant and two other accused committed her rape forcibly. In the medical examination of the victim no external or internal injury was found on her person. After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted final report. Being dissatisfied the victim filed protest petition, which was treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, whereupon the court concerned summoned the applicant. Vide order dated 13.12.2023 non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the present proceeding is a result of property dispute between the applicant and the informant's family. The alleged incident took place on 11.11.2018 whereas the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant on 12.12.2018 after a month. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, therefore, applicant has an apprehension that he 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. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the proceeding of trial and would obey all conditions of bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that since non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence, at this stage. 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 :- 22.5.2025 Mustaqeem. Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad