Allahabad High Court

PRAKASH ANAND RAOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail is appropriate and granted it to the applicant.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Prakash Anand Rao, who was implicated in a criminal case (Crime No.523 of 2023) involving offences under IPC sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354ख, 376 and POCSO Act sections 7 and 8. Rao claimed he was falsely implicated due to a civil dispute with the informant’s mother‑in‑law and cited a history of other cases filed by the same parties. The court noted that the FIR did not originally allege rape and that the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC did not prima facie establish a rape offence. It also observed that a co‑accused, Ajit Kumar Srivastava, had been granted anticipatory bail in a similar circumstance. Considering the lack of substantive rape evidence, the pending civil dispute, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the court granted anticipatory bail to Rao with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under Section 482 CrPC in view of the alleged offences.
Whether the statements under Section 164 CrPC establish the offence of rape under IPC 376.
Whether the existence of a civil dispute and prior cases against the applicant justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused is determinative for the applicant’s bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354ख, 376, 452, 504, 506
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 7, 8

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
false implication
civil dispute
IPC offences
POCSO Act
Section 164 CrPC
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 10823 of 2025

Prakash Anand Rao
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prakhar Saran
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Prakhar Saran Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
brought on the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant to enlarge him on the anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.523 of
2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354ख, 376 I.P.C. and Section
7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Cantt, District- Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant and the mother-in-law of the
opposite party no. 2 have a civil dispute and an Original Suit No. 686 of
2022 (Narendra Nath Singh vs. Shobha Devi and others) has been filed
against the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The applicant has
moved an impleadment application in the said original suit. The applicant
has a criminal history of eight cases in which Case Crime No. 71 of 2024
under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the FIR has been lodged by the aunt
of the informant's husband. The other criminal cases including Case
Crime No. 399 of 2024, 488 of 2018 relate to offences which have been
lodged at the behest of the informant's husband. He further contends that a
perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. would not make out
any offence under Section 376 IPC. The co-accused Ajit Kumar
Srivastava Alias Chulbul has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court
NABAIL No. 10823 of 2025
2

vide order dated 11.02.2026. The case of the applicant he contends, stand
on a similar footing.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
however could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused Ajit
Kumar Srivastava @ Chulbul has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court.

5. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The First Information Report has been lodged for offences under
Section 323, 504, 506, 452, 354ख IPC. There were no allegations of rape
levelled in the FIR. Later, the prosecution case has developed to include a
sexual assault on the minor daughter of the informant. A perusal of the
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the minor daughter of the
informant and that of the informant herself, in the prima facie opinion of
the Court, do not make out the offence of rape. Even otherwise,
considering the fact that there is a civil dispute pending between the
applicant and the mother-in-law of the informant and another case being
Case Crime No. 71 of 2024, which has been lodged by the aunt of the
informant's husband against the applicant, a case for grant of anticipatory
bail is made out. The co-accused has also been granted anticipatory bail
by this Court and in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above,
I deem it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.

8. In the event of the arrest of the applicant- Prakash Anand Rao, he
shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail
on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/Court
concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
NABAIL No. 10823 of 2025
3

ii. that 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;

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;

iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
March 18, 2026
Kirti

Digitally signed by :-
SMT KIRTI MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…