GOVINDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 7884 of 2026

Govind
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Pranshu Dwivedi, Ram               Prakash
                                Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Firoz Ahmad Khan, G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State
and perused the record.

2. No counter affidavit has been filed in the present case though sufficient
opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in
Case Crime No.295 of 2026, under Section 64(1) of BNS, Police Station
Sikandra, District Agra, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

4. 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. The victim of the present case is a married
lady about 30 years of age. The applicant and the victim were enjoining a
consensual relationship and when her husband came to know about this
relationship, the victim lodged the present FIR against the applicant. The
victim visited hotels alongwith the applicant on several occasions and she
did not raise any alarm when the alleged offence of rape was committed
upon her. There is no injury on the person of the victim. The applicant
was a friend of the husband of the victim. The victim admitted in her
statement that she was having good relationship with the applicant. On
12.06.2026, she was taken to hotel by the applicant where the alleged
                                                      NABAIL No. 7884 of 2026
                               2


offence of rape was committed upon her. In fact, the victim and the
applicant were caught red handed by the husband of the victim, therefore,
the first information report was lodged on the next day i.e. on 13.06.2026.
Criminal history of one case of the applicant has been explained in the
supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial
and shall appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or the
Court concerned. It has also been stated that, in case the applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall
cooperate with the investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that
may be imposed by the Court.

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
                                                       NABAIL No. 7884 of 2026
                                3


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.

9. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is
made out.

10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Govind involved in aforesaid
case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, on
his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the
police station or the court concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(iii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer; and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

11. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                                                               NABAIL No. 7884 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



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




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