Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 376, 506, 406, 323, 504 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes a bar on grant of anticipatory bail, however, this objection does not apply on the present case as the application for anticipatory bail was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS and not under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Background
The said FIR alleged that the informant, 41 years old, met the applicant on jeevansathi.com in January 2022 disclosed her Scheduled Caste status and subsequently entered into a relationship wherein physical intimacy occurred on the alleged false promise of marriage. It was further alleged that the applicant had taken money from the informant on various grounds, and that a marriage was fixed but thereafter the relationship turned sour, and the applicant refused to marry her.
The applicant submitted that the relationship was consensual over a substantial period, and that no allegations were made regarding lack of consent or mistaken identity to attract Section 376 of the Penal Code 1860 (‘IPC’). He further stated that he had previously approached the High Court for bail, and later the SC/ST Court, which had been rejected, and that he now apprehended arrest despite no material indicating his guilt.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that although the informant contended that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred anticipatory bail, this objection was not relevant as the present application was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS and not Section 438 of the CrPC.
After the perusal of FIR, the Court noted that the allegations primarily concerned a relationship formed on the promise of marriage over a considerable period without any allegation of force, and that the informant’s maturity as a 41-year-old rendered the relationship consensual. Considering the absence of prima facie material under Section 376 of the IPC, the Court noted that the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail.
Thus, the Court allowed the application and directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000 each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The Court imposed the following conditions:
-
The applicant should attend all hearings,
-
He should not commit any offence like the one alleged,
-
He should not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with evidence, and
-
He should not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
[Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8063, decided on 2-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Waseeq Uddin Ahmed and Areeb Uddin Ahmed
For the Opposite Party: G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
