VIKASH KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 2485 of 2026

Vikash Kumar Singh
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Dhirendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeraj Srivastava,           Sandeep
                                Kumar Yadav

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sandeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.25 of 2026, under Sections 69, 352, 351(3), 316(2) BNS,
Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he
has nothing to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are
trying to arrest the applicant. It is further contended by the learned
counsel that a false and frivolous first information report was lodged by
the informant-victim, wherein she alleged that she was subjected to rape
on the false promise of marriage. It is admitted case of the victim that she
was a major girl, about 30 years of age and that she had been in touch
with the applicant for the last 15 years and during this period they enjoyed
a consensual relationship. It is next submitted that the FIR is a result of
broken relationship and the same was lodged when the relationship turned
sour between them. The version of the victim kept changing and does not
inspire much confidence to prosecution case.

4. Further submission was made by the learned counsel that ocular
                                                             NABAIL No. 2485 of 2026
                                     2


version is not corroborated with medical evidence. It is also submitted
that throughout the prolonged period of 15 years, the victim kept
completely quite about the alleged sexual abuse, meted out to her, by the
applicant until she learnt that the applicant was not going to marry her.
Additionally, the long gap of 15 years between the first alleged act of
sexual intercourse and continued relationship for 15 years, till the filing of
the first information report makes it clear that the matter pertains to a love
affair. When the relationship turned sour, the FIR was lodged by the
victim due to ulterior motives. A case of consensual relationship between
two adults have been converted into a criminal offence. It is further
submitted that the applicant has already been granted interim anticipatory
bail vide order dated 16.03.2026. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the
applicant has furnished bail bonds and he is regularly appearing before
the court concerned. The aforesaid order dated 16.03.2026 is quoted
hereinbelow:-

     "1. The learned A.G.A. states that he has not received instructions.

     2. Put up as fresh on 31.03.2026.

     3. Till 31.03.2026, in the event of the arrest of the applicant- Vikash
     Kumar Singh, involved in the Case Crime No.25 of 2026, under Sections
     69, 352, 351(3), 316(2) B.N.S.S., Police Station Shahpur, District
     Gorakhpur, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his
     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;

     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;
                                                               NABAIL No. 2485 of 2026
                                    3


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

     4. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
     shall be at liberty to cancel the interim anticipatory bail of the applicant."

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

6. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

7. 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.

8. 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.
                                                     NABAIL No. 2485 of 2026
                               4


9. In the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Versus State of Maharashtra
and Another, (2024) 11 Supreme Court Cases 398, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made observation that where physical relationship is
maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be
said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because
of the alleged promise of marriage. A woman may have reasons to have
physical relationship other than the promise of marriage like, personal
liking for the male partner.

10. In case of Prashant Versus State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5
Supreme Court Cases 764, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the
accused or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with
him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.

11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan
Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
2528 observed that on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting
tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of
criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be
invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence,
coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship
into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence
but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.
Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse
of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound
concern for the judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for
condemnation.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish Singh @ Soni Vs. State of
U.P. And Another, 2025 (4) SCC 197 held that where a woman
willingly engages in a long-term relationship with a man, fully aware of
its nature, and there is no cogent evidence to show that such relationship
was induced by a misconception of fact or a false promise of marriage
made in bad faith from the inception, the man cannot be held guilty of
rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
                                                     NABAIL No. 2485 of 2026
                               5


13. In the case of Pramod Kumar Navratna Versus State of
Chhattisgarh and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the Courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of
the IPC by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said
offence. Such genuine cases must be clearly demarcated from the
litigation that arises from the cases of consensual relationships between
consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and
disagreement or a future change of mind.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravish Singh Rana
Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055 has
made observation that the two able minded adults, if maintained a long
term physical relations, then the presumption would arise that they have
voluntarily chose the consensual relationship and subsequent non-
fulfillment of promise of marriage would not attract any offence.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar Versus State of Maharashtra And Another, (2019) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 608 held that where the promise to marry is false and the
intention of the maker, at the time of making the promise, itself was not to
abide by it, but to deceive the woman so as to convince her to engage in
sexual relations, there is a "misconception of fact" that vitiates the
woman's "consent". However, mere breach of a promise cannot be said to
be a false promise. Therefore, to establish a false promise, it would have
to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of
upholding his word at the time of making the promise.

16. In Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, (2021) 18 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the
FIR and the proceedings upon noticing that relationship between the
accused and the victim was of consensual nature and parties were in
relationship for a period of one and a half years, and subsequently the
accused had expressed disinclination to marry the prosecutrix which led
to registration of FIR.

17. In view of above, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the
                                                                                            NABAIL No. 2485 of 2026
                                                                   6


                                    applicant-Vikash Kumar Singh, vide order dated 16.03.2026 is hereby
                                    made absolute. The applicant will remain on anticipatory bail till
                                    conclusion of trial on the same terms and conditions as given in the order
                                    dated 16.03.2026 passed by this Court.

                                    18. The anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

                                    19. In default or misuse of any of the conditions mentioned in the order
                                    dated 16.03.2026, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first
                                    informant-complainant would be at liberty to file appropriate application
                                    for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, before the
                                    concerned court.



                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Nitendra




Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad