KAPIL UPADHYAYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

 CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482
                  BNSS No. - 8011 of 2026

Kapil Upadhyaya
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ajay Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandan Yadav, Dipanshu Kushwaha,
                                G.A.

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

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

2. None appears on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. No
counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the informant,
though he sought time for filing the same on 13.08.2026.

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.285 of 2025, under Sections 69, 70(1), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.,
Police Station - Tajganj, 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
him. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken
place on 07.04.2025 whereas the FIR was lodged after 23 days on
30.04.2026. The delay in lodging the FIR has not been properly explained by
the first informant of the present case. It is further contended that on the date
of incident i.e. 07.04.2025, the police reached the place of occurrence on the
telephonic call of the victim, who stated that the applicant had physically
assaulted her. Nothing was stated by her in respect of alleged commission of
gang rape. It is further contended that after 23 days of the incident, a story
was developed by the victim in order to falsely implicate the present
                                                             NABAIL No. 8011 of 2026
                                   2


applicant. In fact, a money dispute has been converted into a criminal
offience of rape. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the ocular
version. The charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case, and
cognizance of the offence was taken by the court concerned vide order dated
17.09.2025. The applicant was not arrested during the course of the
investigation in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court on 20.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13222 of 2025.
Since the applicant was not arrested during the course of the investigation,
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Learned
counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to
cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by 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 trial, 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 rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

7. The chargesheet has already been submitted in this case and there is no
allegation against the applicant that he did not cooperate with the
investigation. There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the
applicant.

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that :

     "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a
     Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had
     been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance
     or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed
     in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It
     has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court
     is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of
     arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of
     arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under
     Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall
     not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due
                                                             NABAIL No. 8011 of 2026
                                   3

     service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii)
     above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

     12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles
     under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para
     (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-
     bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of
     investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is
     released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested
     during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient
     to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set
     out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has
     not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest
     and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would
     be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not
     agree more with this."

9. Hence, considering the settled principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a
fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the
matter.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Kapil Upadhyaya, involved in the
aforesaid case, he 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 court concerned.

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court
concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial.

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; 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/
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 8011 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.

                                                                                         (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad