Allahabad High Court
DR RAJ ROOPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court held that no good ground existed to grant anticipatory bail and therefore dismissed the application.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application under CrPC Section 482 filed by Dr. Raj Roop, who claimed he was falsely implicated in a rape case and that the relationship with the victim was consensual. The applicant argued that the pending Section 528 application and lack of criminal liability should merit bail. The State contended that the FIR allegations were specific, serious, and supported by investigation, with a charge‑sheet already filed. After reviewing the record, the Court found the allegations prima facie established and the gravity of the accusations sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application without commenting on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR allegations are specific, serious and prima facie supported by investigation.
- Whether a claim of consensual relationship negates criminal liability in a rape allegation.
- Whether the existence of a pending application under Section 528 affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482, 528
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- rape
- consensual relationship
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 528 CrPC
- prima facie
- charge sheet
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2685 of 2026
Dr Raj Roop
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharda Prasad Mishra, Subhash
Chandra Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhijeet Mukherji, G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant
and Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 421 of 2024 under Sections -
69 BNS, Police Station -Ghoorpur, District - Prayagraj, during the
pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted
that from the statements recorded during the course of investigation, it is
evident that the physical relationship established between the applicant
and the victim was consensual in nature and mere failure to solemnize
marriage at a later stage, would not attract criminal liability. Learned
counsel further submitted that against the summoning order passed
against the applicant, he has preferred an Application U/s 528 B.N.S.S.
No. 9484 of 2026, which is still pending before the Court. It is contended
that no offence, as alleged, has been committed by the applicant. It is also
submitted that in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he
shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
NABAIL No. 2685 of 2026
2
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the
informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the
allegations levelled against the applicant are specific and serious in
nature. As per the version of the prosecutrix, the applicant forcibly
committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that the applicant is
continuously threatening the informant and her family members to
withdraw the case and is exerting pressure upon them to turn hostile.They
further submitted that the statements recorded during investigation
corroborate the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that after due
investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the
applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the First Information
Report are specific and prima facie supported by the material collected
during investigation. The charge-sheet has already been filed against the
applicant after due investigation.
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the material
available on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court does not find any good ground for grant of anticipatory bail to
the applicant. In case the applicant has any grievance with regard to the
proceedings, he may avail appropriate remedy.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
It is made clear that observations made in the instant anticipatory bail
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his
independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
May 7, 2026
KK Patel
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…