NAVAJISversusSTATE OF UP

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9320 of 2026

Navajis
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :     Srijan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :     G.A., Manoj Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey holding brief of Sri Srijan Pandey, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for
the informant, 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.519/2025, under Sections 70(1), 123, 351(2), 87 B.N.S.,
Police Station-Behat, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

3. As per the prosecution case, the alleged incident is said to have taken
place on 23.09.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 01.11.2025 after the
recovery of the victim. The FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 0519
of 2025 at Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, under Sections 87,
70(1), 351(2), and 123 of the BNS. It is alleged in the FIR that on
23.09.2025 at around 7-7:30 p.m., the applicant-Navajis came to the niece
of the informant and told her that her father had met with an accident,
believing which, the victim accompanied the applicant-Navajis. The
victim was taken to a hotel by car, wherein the co-accused were already
sitting. Thereafter, the victim was given a toxic substance, because of
which she became unconscious and found herself later in a hotel, where
she was raped by the applicant and the other co-accused. It is also alleged
in the FIR that the accused persons kept the victim in Ghaziabad for more
than a month and compelled her to sign some blank papers, and an
obscene video was also made by the accused persons nominated in the
                                                     NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                               2


FIR. On 23.10.2025, the accused persons left the victim in Behat and
threatened her with dire consequences.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the
victim was a 19-year-old girl, as per the age certificate issued by the
CMO, Saharanpur, on 07.11.2025. The victim and the applicant-Navajis
were in love and decided to marry each other, but the family members of
the victim were reluctant and against this marriage. The victim, on
23.09.2025, left her parental home out of her own sweet will and started
residing with the applicant-Navajis, and on account of the love and
affection for each other, the parties performed their marriage as per
Muslim customs on 04.10.2025, which was later on got registered on
14.10.2025. A copy of the marriage registration certificate dated
14.10.2025 has been appended as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. It is
next submitted that when the victim left her parental home, no missing
report or FIR was lodged by her family members, since they knew that the
victim had left her house on her own will and that the FIR was lodged for
the first time after more than a month when the victim returned to her
home.

5. It is next submitted that the family of the victim tried and again raised
threats to life and limb against the applicant-Navajis and his family
members. Therefore, the applicant-Navajis and the victim came to
Allahabad for filing an appropriate writ petition, and photographs of the
victim were clicked on 11.10.2025 at the Photo Identification Centre of
the Allahabad High Court, a copy of which has been appended as
Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit. However, no joint petition could be filed
since the applicant-Navajis was called up by the police personnel of
Police Station Behat, who asked him to produce the victim before them.
The custody of the victim was forcibly taken by her family members in
the presence of the police, and thereafter, a false FIR was lodged against
the applicant and the other co-accused. It is further contended that the
applicant-Navajis is still the lawful husband of the victim. The victim
travelled to several places by train, bus, etc., but no alarm was raised by
her, which goes to show that the victim was a consenting party with the
applicant-Navajis and that no force, as alleged by the victim, was ever
used by the applicant and the other co-accused. The marriage registration
                                                      NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                               3


certificate is still a vital legal document, which recognizes the validity of
the marriage between the victim and the applicant-Navajis. Thus, when a
valid marriage certificate subsists, then the allegation of rape, even if
believed to be true, will not fulfill the essential ingredients of an offence
under Section 70 of the BNS against the applicant-Navajis.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant and the other co-accused approached this Court by way of filing
a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26266 of 2025 with a prayer to quash
the FIR, wherein the arrest of the applicant and others was stayed by the
Division Bench of this Court till the filing of the charge sheet. The
applicant has cooperated in the investigation, which has now been
completed by the Investigating Officer. The statements of the victim have
already been recorded under Sections 180 BNSS and 183 BNSS. The
learned court concerned has taken cognizance of the offence vide order
dated 22.05.2026; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation of the applicant. It is further submitted that no prima facie
offence is made out against the applicant and the other co-accused. The
Investigating Officer did not conduct a fair investigation. He did not try to
ascertain the location of the hotel where the prosecutrix has claimed to
have been raped for a period of one month. Furthermore, despite the grave
allegation of the accused persons having got the victim's marriage
registered under coercion, no attempt was made by the Investigating
Officer to examine any of the officials of the concerned office. It is not
the claim of the prosecution that a forged marriage certificate was
obtained by the applicant-Navajis. The Investigating Officer did not try to
collect the CCTV footage of the hotel, wherein the victim was allegedly
detained and raped by the applicant and others. No call detail records of
the applicant, co-accused, or the victim were obtained by the Investigating
Officer so as to remotely connect them with the offence in question. The
medical examination report of the victim does not corroborate the
allegations; rather, it completely belies the version as alleged by the
prosecutrix. In fact, the prosecutrix, after joining her family members, has
levelled false, frivolous, and tutored allegations against the applicant and
others with the sole motive of defeating the lawful claim of marriage by
the applicant-Navajis. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
                                                             NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                                   4


criminal antecedent to his credit.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also 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.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the application for anticipatory bail. It is submitted by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that the allegations made in
the FIR and the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS, a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and
other co-accused. The victim was gang raped in a hotel and, since she was
under illegal detention of the applicant, no FIR could be lodged just after
the incident.

9. I have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

10. As per the allegation, the victim remained in the illegal confinement
of the applicant and the other co-accused, but no prompt FIR was lodged
by her family members in respect of the alleged abduction/missing of the
victim. As per the documents available on record, the victim had travelled
to Allahabad (Prayagraj). It is nowhere claimed by the prosecution that
the marriage registration certificate dated 14.10.2025 is a forged
document; rather, the victim admitted in her statement recorded under
Section 183 BNSS that she went to an office where court marriage was
written. Her photographs were clicked by an official of that office. A total
of 4-5 officials were present in the office apart from the general public.
The FIR was lodged after a long delay when the victim returned to her
home. The arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of
this Court by a detailed order dated 18.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 26266 of 2025. The aforesaid order dated 18.02.2026 is
quoted hereinbelow:

     "1. By means of this writ petition, a writ of certiorari has been prayed for
                                                          NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                               5


quashing the First Information Report dated 1.11.2025 which has given
rise to Case Crime No.519 of 2025 under sections 87, 70(1), 351(2), 123
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Behat, District
Saharanpur.

2. The main allegation in the FIR was that on 23.9.2025, the petitioner
no.1 had gone to the house of the niece of the first informant, whose name
was Sana and the petitioner no.1 had told her that her father had met with
an accident and believing this information to be correct, the informant's
niece Sana accompanied the petitioner no.1 in a black vehicle which was
parked near a close-by Madarsa. The petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 were also
inside the car. They gave a toxic substance to Sana because of which she
became unconscious and found herself later in a hotel where she was
raped by the accused. During the period which was of more than a month
she was kidnapped, she was forced to make signatures on blank
documents. Also, pornographic videos made of her. However, on
23.10.2025, the victim Sana was freed by the petitioners and thereafter
she left for Behat, where the informant lived.

3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the
sequence of events which took place are quite different from that which
was described in the FIR. Learned counsel submits that the fact of the
matter was that Sana was a 19 year old lady and the petitioner no.1 was
24 years of age. As they were of different classes, the victim's family was
not allowing the petitioner no.1 to get married to Sana and this had led the
victim Sana to go with the petitioner no.1 of her own sweet will.
Thereafter, they got married by muslim rites on 4.10.2025 and a
certificate of marriage was also issued by the Masjid Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad. The family members of petitioner no.1 were present at the
time of marriage. The marriage was also got registered in the Marriage
Registration Office, Ghaziabad on 14.10.2025. When the respondent no.3
came to know of the marriage, he started threatening the petitioners and,
therefore, the petitioners had also complained on 8.10.2025 to the police.
Thereafter the complaint dated 8.10.2025 was followed by many other
complaints.

4. The case of the petitioners has further been that the petitioner no.1 and
                                                          NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                               6


the victim also came to Allahabad to file a writ petition for getting
protection from the Allahabad High Court and for that purpose they had
also got themselves photographed before Photo Identification Centre of
Allahabad High Court for filing of affidavits. It has been alleged in the
writ petition that while efforts were being made to file the writ petition,
the respondent no.3, by influencing the police, took away the wife of the
petitioner no.1 and handed her over to her family and thereafter the
respondent no.3 had lodged the FIR on all wrong facts.

5. It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
what happened in between the time the victim had left with the petitioner
no.1 on 23.9.2025 till such time as the FIR was lodged, the Court may
look into those facts as well and thereafter come to a proper conclusion.
He in fact relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali
& Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 370 and has
submitted that when a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible
to look into the various materials available to assess what the complainant
had alleged and whether any offence was made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto. He submitted that the applications which were
moved by the petitioner no.1 and Sana, the alleged prosecutrix, were all
supported by photographs and postal receipts. He thereafter has submitted
that the FIR was dated 1.11.2025 whereas the victim had gone with the
petitioner no.1 on 23.9.2025. Though rape etc. had been alleged but she
had left for her parental village without any harm or injury. He submits
that the statement of the victim/prosecutrix under section 183 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was given under duress and
she had stated that she had stayed at Ghaziabad for a whole one month
and had also gone to Allahabad to file a writ petition and had also got
herself photographed. Learned counsel further submitted that the
registration of the marriage was also a vital evidence which went to show
that the petitioner no.1 and the prosecutrix were married.

6. Sri Chaudhary Dil Nisar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.3, however, has submitted that the allegations made in the FIR could
not go behind the averments made in the FIR and relied upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib
Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
                                                         NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                               7


Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. He
has submitted that when the niece of the respondent no.3 namely Sana
was doped and was under the influence of the various medications etc.
and thus during this period she could have done just anything, then it did
not give any right to the petitioners to say that the FIR was wrongly filed
and it be quashed. He further submitted that the statement under section
183 of BNSS prima facie discloses cognizable offences which were made
in the FIR and no interference be made in the writ petition.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when
there were such grey areas which required investigation and when the
victim herself is now with her parents and when the question of doping
and medications etc. had to be looked into then no useful purpose would
be served by investigating the case after arresting the petitioners. To
support this argument, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a
judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 7463 of 2024 (Shobhit Nehra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & 2 Ors.).

8. Having heard Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri Chaudhary Dil Nisar, this Court is of the view that definitely a bare
perusal of the FIR shows commission of a cognizable offence and once
that is disclosed, there is very little scope of interference by this Court to
quash the FIR. However, we are definitely of the view that the
investigation is required in the case so as to crease out the grey areas as to
whether there was any doping etc. on the victim Sana.

9. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court has wide powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent any miscarriage
of justice and thus to ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioners,
in the event they are found to be innocent after the investigation, we are
passing this order. This could definitely be a case where it may be found
after investigation that the offences were not made out at all and,
therefore, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Hema Mishra vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2014) 4 SCC 453 we also give
the requisite protection to the petitioners. Here, it would also be relevant
to reproduce paragraph no. 43 of the judgment of this Court in Shobhit
                                                                  NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                                    8


     Nehra (Supra) and the same is, therefore, being reproduced here as under
     :

           "43. It is clear from the above paragraph that in the case
           where facts are hazy and the investigation has just begun,
           High Court should permit the investigation to proceed. In
           case the High Court stays further investigation it should
           assign reasons. We are not staying the investigation but it
           appears from the material on record that in present case
           implication of petitioners may be found to be false, therefore,
           their right to liberty is required to be protected during the
           period of statutory investigation in the allegations made
           against them in the FIR. Investigation can be stayed in this
           case but that would come in the way of speedy investigation
           which in requirement of criminal administration of justice as
           held by Apex Court in the above paragraph. We do not intend
           to delay the investigation proceedings at all but for the
           reasons given above intend to protect the petitioners from
           arrest till investigation against them is completed by police."

     10. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that now the
     investigation may be undertaken in full swing. However, till the charge
     sheet is submitted, the petitioners shall not be arrested.

     11. This order we are specifically passing since there was no allegation
     with regard to any harm being caused to the private respondent or the
     family during the time the victim went with the petitioners and thereafter
     was handed over to the respondent no.3.

     12. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of."

11. The investigation is complete in this matter. There is no allegation that
the applicants did not cooperate in the investigation. There is no
requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants. It is further
submitted that the other co-accused, namely, Arif, Suhail and Bahdood
Khan @ Nadeem have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide
order dated 16.9.2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s
482 BNSS No. 9207 of 2026.
                                                             NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                                   9


12. 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 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."

13. 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.
                                                                                           NABAIL No. 9320 of 2026
                                                                   10


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

                                    (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Navajis 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.

                                    15. 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
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.



                                                                                        (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




Digitally signed by :-
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad