CHANDRASHEKHAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9376 of 2026

Chandrashekhar And Another
                                                                                    .....Applicant(s)
                                                Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                                         .....Opposite
                                                                                               Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Aditya Yadav, Aryan Yadav, Piyush
                                Kumar, Vishal Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicants in Case Crime No.493 of 2026 under Sections 137(2), 87
B.N.S and Section 16/17 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act,
2012, Police Station-Kotwali Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagaron,
with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as the applicants
apprehend their arrest in the abovementioned case.

3. The present application was put up before this Court on 10.09.2026 and
the following order was passed :-

     "1. This anticipatory bail application, amongst other offences, involves offence under

     Section 64(1) of the BNS which is not cognizable by this Court.


     2. Office to file a fresh report and put up this case before the appropriate Bench as fresh, if

     possible, in the week commencing 14.09.2026."


4. An office report has been filed stating that the present matter pertains to
Section 137(2), 87 of BNS and Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act and not
under Section 64(1) BNS and the present case is cognizable by this Court.

5. On the strength of this office report, Learned counsel for the applicants
                                                     NABAIL No. 9376 of 2026
                               2


has contended that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, which
fact is not objected to by Learned AGA.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the applicants
have been falsely nominated in the case. They were not named in the
F.I.R. and were also not named in the statement under Section 180
B.N.S.S. of the victim. It is quite belatedly in the statement recorded
under Section 183 B.N.S.S. of the victim that the applicants have been
named. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no allegation
of the applicants sexually assaulting the victim and even in her medical
examination, the victim has been found to be about eighteen years of age.
Learned counsel has further submitted that similarly situated co-accused
Sandeep Kumar has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court
in NABAIL No.9327 of 2026 and the case of the applicants stands on a
similar footing to that of the co-accused.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute
the fact that the similarly situated co-accused has been granted interim
anticipatory bail by this Court.

8. The matter requires consideration.

9. Issue notice to the opposite party No.2.

10. Connect with NABAIL No.9327 of 2026 and put up as fresh on
28.09.2026.

11. As the case of the applicants stands on a similar footing to that of the
co-accused Sandeep Kumar, for the reasons cited in the order of Sandeep
Kumar, the case of the applicants is also considered for grant of interim
anticipatory bail till the next date of listing.

12. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicants-
Chandrashekhar and Shani Kumar involved in the aforesaid case, they
shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing a
personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer
of the police station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

i. the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
                                                                                          NABAIL No. 9376 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    police officer as and when required;

                                    ii. that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or
                                    to any police officer;

                                    iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous
                                    permission of the Court;

                                    iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
                                    witness;

                                    13. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty
                                    to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
                                    to the applicants.



                                                                                      (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    A. Pandey




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad