HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9879 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amrit Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 225 of 2026, under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) BNS, Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim is a married lady about 26 years of age. As per the allegation contained in the first information report, she was subjected to rape several times by the applicant, however, no time, date and place was mentioned by the victim in the first information report. The victim did not make it clear as to why the first information report was not lodged by her when the alleged offence of rape was committed for the first time. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that from the conduct of the victim, she appears to be a consenting party. The applicant was mediator in her marriage and the relationship between the victim and her husband had deteriorated, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. The medical report does not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Hemendra Pratap Singh, Tarun Kumar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amrit Mishra, G.A. Sunil Kumar Chauhan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) support the ocular version rather it belies the complete prosecution story. The applicant has criminal antecedent of three cases prior to this case; one case was registered as Case Crime No. 237 of 2010, under Section 110G Cr.P.C., Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar; another case was registered as Case Crime No. 147 of 2018, under Sections 332, 353 IPC, Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar, wherein he was granted bail by the court concerned vide order dated 12.4.2021; third case was registered as Case Crime No. 638 of 2018, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar, wherein the proceeding has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an NABAIL No. 9879 of 2026 2 accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 8. 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 merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sunil Kumar Chauhan involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned or to the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation; (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ NABAIL No. 9879 of 2026 3 Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the concerned court. September 29, 2026 Lalit Shukla NABAIL No. 9879 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad