Allahabad High Court

PANKAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 29 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Pankak Kumar under CrPC Section 482 in a rape‑related case (IPC Sections 64(2), 333, 351(3)). The applicant claimed innocence, alleging false implication and inconsistencies in the victim's statements, and offered to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed the bail but did not dispute the facts. Relying on the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, and the risk of tampering or fleeing. Finding that the applicant posed no such risk and that personal liberty must be protected, the Court granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape under IPC Sections 333 and 351(3).
Whether the applicant is likely to influence the investigation, tamper with evidence, or flee from justice.
Whether the power of arrest is justified in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 183, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 64(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482 CrPC
rape allegation
personal liberty
false implication
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9941 of 2026

Pankaj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Garima Kumari Jaiswal, Pratibha
Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. 92 of 2026, under Section 64(2), 333, 351(3) BNS, Police Station
Vindhamganj, District Sonbhadra 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. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 10.5.2026,
whereas the first information report was lodged after more than two months
on 6.7.2026. No allegation of rape was levelled by the victim at the time of
filing of the first information report, however, during the course of
investigation, she alleged that she was subjected to rape by the applicant. It
is not made clear as to what prevented her from disclosing about the offence
of rape at the time of lodging of first information report. It is further
submitted that there are a lot of contradictions in the statements of the victim
and that from perusal of her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it
appears that she was a consenting party and when the things turned sour
between the applicant and the victim, she lodged the first information report
due to ulterior motives. The ocular version is not corroborated with the
NABAIL No. 9941 of 2026
2

medical evidence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit.
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
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
NABAIL No. 9941 of 2026
3

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-Pankaj Kumar 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/
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 30, 2026
Lalit Shukla

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…