Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RISHABH CHAURASIYA @ BHANU @ MANUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant until the conclusion of the trial.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Rishabh Chaurasiya, who is the brother‑in‑law of the FIR complainant. The FIR originally contained charges of dowry harassment but no rape allegation; however, during investigation the complainant recorded statements alleging rape. The applicant argued that the rape allegation is false, he cooperated with the investigation, and he has no prior criminal record, seeking bail until trial. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the serious rape allegation recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the applicant was not arrested during investigation, the charge‑sheet had been filed, and there was no need for custodial interrogation, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offences.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite a charge‑sheet and serious rape allegations.
  • Whether the alleged rape allegation is false and thus does not warrant denial of bail.
  • Whether the applicant’s cooperation with investigation and clean criminal record justify bail.
  • Whether Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. notice requirement applies in this context.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Section 41A Cr.P.C.
  • rape allegation
  • dowry harassment
  • criminal procedure
  • bail conditions
  • false accusation

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                  BNSS No. - 2088 of 2026

Rishabh Chaurasiya @ Bhanu @ Manu
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Devesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   G.A., Ram Raksha Tiwari

Court No. - 66
                      HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Ram Raksha Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Imran Khan,
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 376, 498A, 354,
323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kydganj, District
Prayagraj, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, till the
conclusion of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is devar of the
victim who lodged the FIR of the present case and in the FIR she did not
make any allegation of rape against the applicant. He next submits, when
after lodgement of the FIR police tried to arrest the applicant then applicant
filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 19179 of 2024 before this Court and on
24.10.2025 division bench of this Court was pleased to disposed of his writ
petition with the observation that all the alleged offences are punishable
within seven years and therefore, notice may be served to him pursuant to
the provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. but after the order dated 24.10.2024
passed by Division Bench of this Court when during investigation statement
of victim i.e. bhabhi of the applicant was recorded under section 180 and
183 BNSS then she also started making allegation of rape against the
applicant and therefore, applicant again had to knock the door of this Court
by way of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 20911 of 2024 and again this
time Division Bench of this Court on 3.12.2024 was pleased to indulge into
                                                       NABAIL No. 2088 of 2026
                                2


matter and issued notice to the informant and directed that applicant may not
be arrested.

4. He further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition filed by the
applicant investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed
and pursuant to the order dated 3.12.2024 passed by Division Bench of this
Court during investigation applicant was not arrested and now chargesheet
has been filed and applicant is having apprehension of his arrest.

5. He further submitted that prima facie, the allegation of rape appears to be
false and improbable and it appears due to the matrimonial dispute victim
also made allegation of rape against the applicant who is younger brother of
her husband. He further submits, as during investigation applicant was not
arrested and there is no allegation that he did not co-operate with the
investigation, therefore, now there is no occasion of his custodial
interrogation.

6. He further submitted that therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case applicant should be enlarged on anticipatory bail
till conclusion of trial.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that from the statements of
victim i.e. bhabhi of the applicant recorded under section 180 and 183 BNSS
it is apparent that she made serious allegation of rape against the applicant,
therefore, applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

8. However, they could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was
lodged by the victim herself but in the FIR she did not make any allegation
of rape.

9. They further could not dispute the fact that during investigation pursuant
to the orders passed by Division Bench of this Court applicant has not been
arrested and now charge sheet has been filed.

10. They further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case
applicant is not having any previous criminal history to his credit.

11. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record of
the case.
                                                         NABAIL No. 2088 of 2026
                                 3


12. Applicant is devar of the victim and it appears victim in her both the
statements recorded under section 180 and 183 BNSS made allegation of
rape against him apart from allegation of torture for dowry but FIR of the
present case was lodged by the victim herself and in the FIR she did not
make any allegation of rape and therefore, it appears during investigation she
developed story of rape.

13. Further, even it reflects during investigation when applicant approached
this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition then Division Bench of this Court was
pleased to stay his arrest and pursuant to the orders passed by Division
Bench of this Court during investigation applicant was not arrested and there
is no allegation that he did not co-operate with the investigation.

14. Further now charge sheet in the present matter after investigation has
been filed and considering the general practice adopted by now a days by the
court concerned the apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be
ruled out. Further even it appears, after chargesheet custodial interrogation
of applicant is not required.

15. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in
this case, till conclusion of trial.

16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

17. In the event of arrest of the applicant-Rishabh Chaurasiya @ Bhanu @
Manu, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail
till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court
Concerned, with the conditions that:-

i. 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
or tamper with the evidence;

ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the
court;

iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
                                                                                             NABAIL No. 2088 of 2026
                                                                     4


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

                                    v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed
                                    unless personal presence is exempted;

                                    18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned
                                    shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

                                    19. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to
                                    the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming
                                    his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Ankita
                                                                                                  (Sameer Jain,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.