Allahabad High Court

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Compliance affidavit filed today by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

3. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.238 of 2025 under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri, the applicant - Dharmveer alias Dhurmu has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

4. F.I.R. in this matter was lodged with the allegation that named accused Dharmveer alias Dhurmu and his wife Pooja used to blackmail the deceased Poonam, the wife of the informant, on the basis of some obscene photographs of the deceased and subsequently the deceased in a state of frustration and instigation made by the named accused persons committed suicide on 7.7.2025 at 11:00 P.M. Investigation started which is going on.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to establish an offence under section 108 B.N.S. (section 306 IPC) are missing in this matter. It is further submitted that the co-accused Pooja, the wife of the present applicant, has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report / charge-sheet by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No.6881 of 2025. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 8053 of 2025 submitted that the role of present applicant and his wife co-accused Pooja is almost of the same nature. Vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. No cogent evidence evidence has been collected by the I.O. against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant had some friendship with the deceased and he was having some obscene photographs of the deceased whereas the said photographs were obtained by co-accused Pooja who also used to blackmail the deceased on the basis of said photographs which caused frustration and distress in the mind of the deceased and on the instigation of the present applicant and his wife co- accused Pooja, the named accused persons, she committed suicide by hanging. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

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 3 NABAIL No. 8053 of 2025 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 principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 18, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Compliance affidavit filed today by the learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

3. Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.238 of 2025 under Section 108 B.N.S., Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri, the applicant - Dharmveer alias Dhurmu has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

4. F.I.R. in this matter was lodged with the allegation that named accused Dharmveer alias Dhurmu and his wife Pooja used to blackmail the deceased Poonam, the wife of the informant, on the basis of some obscene photographs of the deceased and subsequently the deceased in a state of frustration and instigation made by the named accused persons committed suicide on 7.7.2025 at 11:00 P.M. Investigation started which is going on.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to establish an offence under section 108 B.N.S. (section 306 IPC) are missing in this matter. It is further submitted that the co-accused Pooja, the wife of the present applicant, has been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report / charge-sheet by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.8.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No.6881 of 2025. It is further 2 NABAIL No. 8053 of 2025 submitted that the role of present applicant and his wife co-accused Pooja is almost of the same nature. Vague allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. No cogent evidence evidence has been collected by the I.O. against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted that the applicant had some friendship with the deceased and he was having some obscene photographs of the deceased whereas the said photographs were obtained by co-accused Pooja who also used to blackmail the deceased on the basis of said photographs which caused frustration and distress in the mind of the deceased and on the instigation of the present applicant and his wife co- accused Pooja, the named accused persons, she committed suicide by hanging. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

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 3 NABAIL No. 8053 of 2025 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 principles 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

10. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. November 18, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)