HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 738 of 2025 Court No. - 70 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. 6034 of 2012 (Smt. Shila Devi Vs. Sundar Singh Solanki), under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail. 3. Vide order dated 11.02.02025, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It has also been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant undertakes to cooperate during the 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 investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and submits that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant that when her husband was arrested by the applicant she went to the police station for giving him food then the applicant lured her that if she satisfy his sexual desire he will release her husband and on the date of incident the applicant along with other police personnel entered into the house of complainant and took her husband and thereafter applicant committed her rape forcibly. Thus, there is active participation of applicant in the commission of offence, therefore, no indulgence be granted to the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kundan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Tej Om Prakash Gupta Sundar Singh Solanki .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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. 7. 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 and considering the fact that the victim in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation of rape against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 15, 2025 Mustaqeem. ABAIL No. 738 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad