HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9620 of 2026 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeshari Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, 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. 150 of 2026, under Section 64, 351(3) BNS and Section 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur 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 alleged incident is said to have taken place in the month of February, 2025, whereas the first information report was lodged after three months on 22.5.2025, under Section 351(3) BNS and Section 67 of I.T. Act. No allegation of rape has been levelled in the first information report rather the informant alleged that he saw the applicant and the victim in a compromising position and on resistance the victim alleged that she is in love with the applicant and the marriage between the victim and the informant was solemnized under pressure. Later on, when statements of the victim was recorded under Sections 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS, she alleged that she was subjected to rape by the applicant, however, no date was mentioned by the victim in her statement. On the basis of statement of the victim, the Investigating Officer added Section 64 BNS in the present case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambrish Tewari, Rajeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Yadav Rajneesh Mishra Alias Vikas Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a consensual relationship / extra marital affair between the applicant and the victim has been converted into a criminal offence of rape. False allegation was levelled by the informant and the victim and it was not made clear as to why a prompt first information report was not lodged just after the alleged incident though the informant has seen the applicant and the victim in a compromising position. The victim refused to get herself medically examined, therefore, there is no medical report to substantiate the allegations levelled by the informant and the victim. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. It is further submitted that initially the applicant was protected by a Division Bench of this Court under Section 351(3) BNS and Section 67 of I.T. Act vide order dated 13.7.2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15061 of 2026. In order to nullify the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.7.2026, the Investigating Officer in collusion with the informant party added Section 64 BNS. 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 NABAIL No. 9620 of 2026 2 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 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-Rajneesh Mishra Alias Vikas Mishra involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on his/her 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; NABAIL No. 9620 of 2026 3 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. September 23, 2026 Lalit Shukla NABAIL No. 9620 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad