Allahabad High Court
YASHRAAJ @ YASHPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that the anticipatory bail application is rejected as no sufficient ground exists to grant bail.
Summary
The applicant, Yashraaj @ Yashpal Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 CrPC in a case where he was charged with offences under Sections 376 and 406 IPC. He claimed innocence, alleging a belated FIR, contradictions in statements, and no medical injuries to the victim. The State, represented by the A.G.A., argued that the applicant, a public servant, had committed rape and fraud, and that the FIR specifically implicated him. The court examined precedents on anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need to consider the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Relying on the facts and the lack of convincing evidence, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged rape and criminal breach of trust.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and alleged lack of evidence outweigh considerations of offence gravity, role, and risk of interference with investigation.
- How the Supreme Court precedents (Sushila Aggarwal, Srikant Upadhyay, Nitin B. Nikhare) guide the discretion to grant or deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 376, 406
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- rape
- criminal breach of trust
- discretion
- Supreme Court precedent
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2450 of 2026
Yashraaj @ Yashpal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hemant Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material available on record.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 272 of 2025 under Sections - 376, 406 IPC, Police
Station - Civil Lines, District - Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the applicant. It is
further submitted that alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 14.05.2023
and complaint of the present case was filed on 15.10.2025 i.e. highly belated and there
is no plausible explanation in this regard. It is also submitted that there are
contradictions in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during
investigation. It is also submitted that in the medical examination, no injury was found
on the body of the victim. It is further submitted that the applicant has apprehension of
his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against
him. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Nitin B. Nikhare vs. The State of
Maharashtra arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1889 of 2024 decided on 21 January, 2025.
In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the
liberty of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.G.A. has contended that the specific levelled against the applicant in the
FIR. He further submitted that applicant is a public servant and he has committed rape
NABAIL No. 2450 of 2026
2
upon the victim under the pretext of getting her jot in the Army and Police and also
duped money from her. He further submitted that statements recorded during
investigation also corroborate the prosecution case.
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.
In Srikant Upadhyay Vs.State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine 9425, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power.
Though in many cases, it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule
and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by
the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case
Insofar as the allegations are concerned, the same is very much apparent on record. In
this case, bare perusal of the first information report itself shows that the allegations
are specific against the applicant. In case the applicant has any grievance, he may
avail remedy before the appropriate forum. No good ground is made out for
anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, without
expressing any opinion on merit, the instant anticipatory bail application is rejected.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits
of the case.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 6, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…