SUNIL KUMAR CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9879 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Chauhan
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ashok Kumar Singh, Hemendra Pratap
                                Singh, Tarun Kumar Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amrit Mishra, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Amrit Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the informant and 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. 225 of 2026, under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) BNS, Police
Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar with a prayer to grant him
anticipatory bail.

3. 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
the applicant. It is further submitted that the victim is a married lady about
26 years of age. As per the allegation contained in the first information
report, she was subjected to rape several times by the applicant, however, no
time, date and place was mentioned by the victim in the first information
report. The victim did not make it clear as to why the first information report
was not lodged by her when the alleged offence of rape was committed for
the first time. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that
from the conduct of the victim, she appears to be a consenting party. The
applicant was mediator in her marriage and the relationship between the
victim and her husband had deteriorated, therefore, the applicant has been
falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. The medical report does not
                                                        NABAIL No. 9879 of 2026
                                 2


support the ocular version rather it belies the complete prosecution story.
The applicant has criminal antecedent of three cases prior to this case; one
case was registered as Case Crime No. 237 of 2010, under Section 110G
Cr.P.C., Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar; another case was
registered as Case Crime No. 147 of 2018, under Sections 332, 353 IPC,
Police Station Narsaina, District Bulandshahar, wherein he was granted bail
by the court concerned vide order dated 12.4.2021; third case was registered
as Case Crime No. 638 of 2018, under Section 3/4 of Prevention of
Damage of Public Property Act, Police Station Narsaina, District
Bulandshahar, wherein the proceeding has been stayed by this Court vide
order dated 7.11.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that
the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall
appear as and when required by the Investigating Agency or 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 investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
by the Court.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail, however, he does not dispute the factual aspect.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the record.

6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another,
(2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an
application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature
of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the
course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating
witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It
has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by
considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering
whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a
matter of discretion.

7. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is
an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an
                                                        NABAIL No. 9879 of 2026
                                3


accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes
necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest
can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and
the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the
accused.

8. 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, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

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

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sunil Kumar Chauhan involved
in aforesaid case 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 Station House Officer of the
police station concerned or to the court concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(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 or to any police officer;
and

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court.

10. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9879 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 29, 2026
                                    Lalit Shukla




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