HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9803 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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.73 of 2001, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya, 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. The FIR of the present case was lodged on 06.04.2001 in respect of the incident dated 27.03.2001. The applicant and co-accused Alwar Singh were nominated in the FIR. After registration of the FIR, co-accused Alwar Singh alongwith the victim filed a Writ Petition No.3126 of 2001. The victim appeared before this Court and she was duly identified by her counsel Shri Ravindra Singh. She made a statement that she had voluntarily married to co-accused Alwar Singh. According to the High School Certificate of the victim, her date of birth was 19.07.1981. She was about 20 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. Keeping in mind the statement and age of the victim, the arrest of the petitioner including the applicant was stayed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2001. The investigation was completed by the investigating officer and he submitted chargesheet on 19.07.2001. The chargesheet dated 19.07.2001 was challenged by the victim and co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pappu @ Jitendra Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) accused Alwar Singh by way of filing an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.6405 of 2001 and proceedings of the learned trial court was stayed by this Court. However, the aforesaid application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 01.04.2013. The applicant could not know about the dismissal of the aforesaid application. Recently, Non- Bailable Warrant has been issued against the applicant and the other co- accused on 17.08.2026. The applicant did not evade the process of law and he did not commit any offence. The co-accused Alwar Singh and the applicant are living together in a peaceful married life and from their wedlock, two children were born to the married couple. It is further submitted that the applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and now the charge-sheet has been submitted, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. No proceedings under Section 84 Cr.P.C. has been issued against present applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by 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 trial, 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under NABAIL No. 9803 of 2026 2 Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 8. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter. NABAIL No. 9803 of 2026 3 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pappu @ Jitendra Singh, 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 court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (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; 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/ 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. October 8, 2026 Nitendra NABAIL No. 9803 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad