Allahabad High Court

DR BADRI PRASAD AGRAWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant and set aside the Special Judge’s bail rejection order.

Summary

Dr. Badri Prasad Agrawal, a 79‑year‑old senior citizen, appealed against a bail rejection order of a Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that he raped a domestic worker on 4‑Nov‑2024 and threatened to release a video, but the FIR was lodged only on 20‑May‑2025, a delay of over six months. The appellant claimed false implication, absence of any recovered video, and no evidence of non‑cooperation with the investigation. The High Court noted the delay, the lack of video evidence, and the appellant’s clean record, and, without addressing the merits, granted anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, setting aside the Special Judge’s order. The court imposed a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and stipulated conditions for the bail.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of the nature of the allegations.
Whether the six‑month delay in filing the FIR warrants bail.
The impact of the absence of the alleged video and lack of non‑cooperation on bail considerations.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 351(2), 352, 64(2)(d)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(2), 3(2)(V)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SC/ST Act
delay in FIR
rape allegation
senior citizen
video evidence
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8838 of 2026

Dr Badri Prasad Agrawal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Gupta, Bhriguram Ji
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, G.A., Ruchir
Sharma

Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Bhriguram Ji, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dhirendra
Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant
and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

3. A second supplementary affidavit dated 25.09.2026 is on record which
is being relied by learned counsel for the appellant, copy of it has been
provided today in Court to learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
who submits that he is ready for arguments. The Court proceeds to hear
the matter.

4. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Dr. Badri Prasad
Agrawal with the prayer to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned
bail rejection order dated 15.07.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Jhansi in Case Crime No. 184 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(d),
123, 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station
Nawabad, District Jhansi and with a further prayer to grant anticipatory
bail to the appellant in the aforesaid case till trial.

5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 20.05.2025 by the victim /
opposite party no.2 against the appellant alleging therein that she is a
household worker in the house of the appellant since last four years. On
04.11.2024 the accused told her to consume tea and after consuming tea
she became unconscious. In the meantime, he committed rape upon her.
When she regained consciousness she found her to be nude and then
shouted on which he came and threatened her that he has been made a
video of the incident and would make it viral if she tells to anyone about
it. She pleaded that the same may not be made viral on which he abused
her and threatened her. She is quite terrified. Report be lodged and action
be taken.
CRLA No. 8838 of 2026
2

6. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet dated 17.07.2025 was
filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 64(2)(d), 123, 352,
351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. The Court of the Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi vide order dated
21.05.2026 took cognizance upon the same and summoned the applicant.
Thus the present appeal has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para
21 of the affidavit that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 79
years. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained
delay of more than six months inasmuch as the present incident is stated
to have occurred on 04.11.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on
20.05.2025. It is further submitted that the present FIR was challenged in
a writ petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
12721 of 2025 (Dr. Badri Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others)
in which vide order dated 17.06.2025 a Division Bench of this Court had
stayed the arrest of the petitioner during the period of investigation and
till cognizance is taken on the police report by the court concerned. It is
further submitted that no such alleged video has been recovered during
investigation. It is submitted that to the contrary a pen-drive was provided
by the first informant to the police which was containing a video
recording which was recorded surreptitiously by the victim of the
appellant and she was blackmailing the appellant on the basis of the said
recording. The details of the recording have been recorded in the case
diary which has been placed before the Court which are at page 60 of the
paper book. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal history as
stated in para 21 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that during the
period of investigation, there was no complaint ever made regarding the
appellant not cooperating in it or threatening the witnesses. It is submitted
that the prayer for anticipatory bail be allowed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and first informant / opposite
party no.2 opposed the present petition and submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the first informant
submitted that the appellant is a politically active person and because of
the said reason the FIR was not being lodged and when she took the said
video to the police station then the FIR was lodged. It is submitted that
the appellant is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about
six months and 16 days from the date of occurrence. The appellant is
stated to be aged about 79 years. During the period of investigation, his
arrest was stayed by an order passed in a writ petition by a Division
Bench of this Court. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on
which cognizance has been taken. There is nothing reported against the
appellant of not cooperating with the investigation or threatening the
CRLA No. 8838 of 2026
3

witnesses. No such alleged video has been recovered either from the
possession or pointing out of the appellant.

10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering
the nature of accusation, the appellant is entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail in this case.

11. In view of the same, the prayer for anticipatory bail in the appeal
succeeds and the same stands allowed. The impugned order dated
15.07.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi is hereby set
aside.

12. In the event, the appellant Dr. Badri Prasad Agrawal if arrested in
the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail during period of
trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) The appellant shall appear before the court concerned within a period
of two weeks from today and file certified copy of this order for its
compliance.

(ii) the appellant shall make himself available on each and every date
fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

(iii) the appellant 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.

(iv) the appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before
the concerned court.

13. In case, the appellant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the
trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the
appellant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

14. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at
liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

15. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made
by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of
the appellant.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
September 29, 2026
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…