HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3281 of 2026 Court No. - 72 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. Earlier it was informed by the learned A.G.A. that notice has been served upon informant. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of informant of the present case. Thereafter, this Court issued notice to the opposite party no. 2/informant vide order dated 30.07.2026. 3. As per office report dated 01.09.2026, notice has been served personally upon the informant. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of informant to contest the present matter, therefore, the Court proceeds further. 4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0001 of 2025, under Sections 376D, 354-C, 342, 506, 323, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Sections 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Anti Human Trafficking Unit, District City (Commissionerate Agra), with a prayer to grant her anticipatory bail. 5. On the last occasion, i.e., 02.09.2026, this Court directed the learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions as to whether the applicant is cooperating in the investigation or not. The learned A.G.A. has filed an affidavit of compliance, wherein it has been stated that the applicant is cooperating in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bharat Singh Pal, Shivangi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Mala Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the alleged offence, in spite of that the police are trying to arrest her. It is further contended that the applicant is a lady. The informant/victim is habituated to lodging false FIRs. Earlier, she lodged a first information report against her mother, two brothers, sister and bhabhi under Sections 376, 511, 354(B), 323, 392, 325, 328, 120-B, 406 and 506 I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No. 1011 of 2019 at Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. Thereafter, the informant lodged another Complaint Case against her mother, Shanti Devi, and other family members on 25.10.2019, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2700883 of 2019. The applicant also lodged an FIR against the informant on 10.03.2018 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B and 379 I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No. 0220 of 2018 at Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi (Commissionerate). As a counterblast to the aforesaid FIR, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on 20.08.2025. A total of 11 persons have been nominated in the FIR. No allegation of rape has been levelled against the present applicant. The victim alleged that a physical relationship was established by co-accused Satya Prakash Tiwari, Hariom Tiwari and Ravi Tiwari (brother of the applicant). It is further contended that initially, the arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23548 of 2025. However, the same was dismissed on 10.02.2026. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the statements of the victim have been recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS. The Investigating Officer has already recorded the statements of other witnesses, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Co-accused Satya Prakash Tiwari, who was nominated in the FIR and against whom the allegation of rape has been made, has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to her credit. 7. 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 NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026 2 also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she 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. 8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect. 9. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026 3 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. 13. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Smt. Mala Tiwari, involved in the aforesaid case, she shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on 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 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 her/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. 14. 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 24, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 3281 of 2026 4 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad