KUNAN URF KUNALversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 8924 of 2026

Kunan Urf Kunal
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Rahul Kumar Sharma, Vipul Babu
                                Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 71
                 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicant in Case Crime No.0171 of 2026, under Sections 351(3), 352,

333 & 64(1) of the B.N.S., P.S.- Mant, District- Mathura, with a prayer to

enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in

the above-mentioned case.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR has been lodged after

a delay of five days. The medical report does not substantiate the

allegations of forcible rape.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further denied the making of any

compromising video of the victim taking a bath. Learned counsel for the

applicant has further contended that there are WhatsApp chats and call

details which indicate that the victim and the applicant were in a

consensual extra marital relationship.

4. The Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory
                                                     NABAIL No. 8924 of 2026
                                 2


bail and has contended that the applicant is the solitary named accused in

the case. Specific allegations of rape have been made against the applicant

and he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the Learned counsels for

the parties and perused the material brought on the record.

6. The disputed defence of the applicant with respect to the victim being

in a consensual relationship with the applicant cannot be gone into at this

stage. However, a perusal of the statement recorded under Section 180

BNSS of the victim indicates that she has not made allegations of rape

against the applicant and only of the applicant trying to force himself

upon her. In the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, allegations

of rape have been made.The victim is stated to be alone at her house with

her minor three year old child when the applicant is said to have forced

himself upon her and had also beaten up the husband of the informant

when he had come while the applicant was allegedly escaping after

committing rape upon her. From the delay in lodging of the FIR, the

contradictions between the statements recorded under Sections 180 and

183 BNSS, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, taking into

consideration all the other circumstances, false implication of the

applicant cannot be ruled out.


7. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it fit to

enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant

is allowed.

9. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Kunan Urf Kunal, he shall

be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 8924 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    furnishing a personal bond and surety 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;

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

                                    witness;

                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned

                                    shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

                                    11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively

                                    for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be

                                    considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.


                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Sachin




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