Allahabad High Court
MASHKOORversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The anticipatory bail application is rejected as no case for bail exists in view of the serious nature of the allegations.
Summary
Mashkoor applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case where he was charged with offences including rape, dowry prohibition violations, and various IPC offences. This was his second anticipatory bail application; the first had been dismissed after the charge sheet was filed. The applicant argued that he had no criminal antecedents, no coercive process had been issued, and he would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, and the court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC alleging rape, and the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra. Finding that the victim’s allegation was serious and that no merit-based assessment could be made, the court held that no case for anticipatory bail existed. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC given the nature and gravity of the charges, including a rape allegation.
- Whether the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC and the seriousness of the offences preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 482
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354B, 376, 498A, 504, 506, 511
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- rape allegation
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail jurisprudence
- serious offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9359 of 2026
Mashkoor
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankur Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application has been moved on behalf of applicant seeking
anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2024, under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506, 354B, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 OF Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur, with the
prayer that in the event of arrest, he may be released on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second
anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. Earlier in
the first anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of applicant, this
Court had granted interim protection till the submission of charge sheet.
However, the said anticipatory bail application has been dismissed for
want of prosecution. Now charge sheet has been filed against the
applicant. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested
in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence
against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal
antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against him so
far. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during
investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the
investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is
granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will
cooperate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
5. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider
NABAIL No. 9359 of 2026
2
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of
accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into consideration.
6. In the instant case, 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 and considering the fact that the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made specific allegation of rape
against him, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case
for anticipatory bail is made out.
7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 11, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…